User talk:Jaan/Archive 3

Marya Roxx
What is your problem? Why do you pick over this article? You can clearly see all of the necessary information is available, you are just being pedantic. Take your concerns to the talk page and please stop edit warring. WWGB (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely my concerns are clear to you: provide sources that actually support your claims, not just any kind. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Vaivara on 20th Waffen Division
Hi! Are you sure about this change. If so, please give a citation, as Birn states, they came from all over Estonia. Or did you mean Vaivara camp complex? --Dodo19 (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I mistaked Vaivara camp for the Vaivara camp complex but otherwise, Västrik and Maripuu are quite specific about the fact that the inmates executed in Klooga were brought from the Vaivara camp complex. The other camps like Jägala had been terminated much earlier. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically Klooga too belonged to the Vaivara complex. I think, that's why it says the prisoners came from all over Estonia.--Dodo19 (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Vaivara and Klooga are 200 km apart but they are not all over Estonia. here is a list of the camps of the Vaivara complex. You can convince yourself that these were not all over Estonia, envolving only the Viru County and Harju County. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey!
You totally took your userpage design from mine :D Hekerui (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A funny coincidence indeed! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Avril_Lavigne
Thanks for mentioning this; I moved your suggestion into a discussion of its own. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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) 21:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am agreed. But you must not believe german informations. Their losses were much higher. See Rüdiger Overmans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And dont believe german informations. read this.

By this time there are no enough the reliable figures of losses of German army received by direct statistical calculation. It speaks absence for various reasons authentic initial statistical materials about German losses.

More or the picture concerning number of prisoners of war вермахта on the Soviet-German front is less clear. On the Russian sources the Soviet armies had been captivated 3172300 soldiers вермахта, from them in camps of People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs there were 2388443 Germans. By estimates of German historians, in the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps only German military men there was about 3,1 million Divergence, as you can see, approximately in 0,7 million people this divergence distinctions in a death-roll estimation in a captivity of Germans Speaks: under the Russian archival documents, in Soviet to a captivity 356700 Germans were lost, and according to German researchers — about 1,1 million people It is represented that more authentic is the Russian figure of victims in a captivity of Germans, and missing 0,7 million Germans who have missing and not come back from a captivity actually were lost not in a captivity, and in the field of fight.

As to the lost soldiers вермахта and armies СС on the Soviet-German front then position is much worse.

Overwhelming majority of the publications devoted to calculations of fighting demographic losses вермахта and armies СС, lean against the data of the central bureau (department) of the account of losses of staff of the armed forces entering into the Joint Staff of general headquarters.« Чрезмерщики »estimate this data as absolutely authentic. But it has on closer examination appeared that the opinion on high reliability of data of this department is strongly exaggerated. So, the German historian R.Overmans in article« Human a victim of the Second World War in Germany »has come to a conclusion that«... Channels of receipt of the information in вермахте do not find out that degree of reliability which is attributed it by some authors ». As an example he informs that« one office conclusion of department of losses in a staff вермахта, concerning by 1944, has documentary confirmed that losses which have been suffered during the Polish, French and Norwegian campaigns and which revealing did not represent any technical difficulties, were almost twice above, than was originally informed ».

It is necessary to tell that unauthenticity of German messages on losses was obvious even during war. Some examples of understating by Germans of the losses result in the book «Wars and the population of Europe» B.Urlanis. In particular, he writes that on December, 11th, 1941 Hitler in рейхстаге has declared that from June, 22nd till December, 1st 1941г. The German army has lost 195648 killed and missing persons that ненамного, than is fixed in department of the account of losses of a staff вермахта (257900 killed and missing persons). «The new international year-book» for 1941 named these figures "extremely fantastic" and has resulted thus calculation of the American military observers on which for December, 11th, 1941 of loss of Germans by the killed were defined in 1300 That more than in 5 times exceeds the data вермахта. Even in Germany nobody trusted the official data about losses of the German army. B.Urlanis results endurance from article in the Swedish magazine "Vekku-zhurnalen", published in April, 1943 and in which it was marked: «Each German thinks that if official figures about the sizes of losses would be true struggle against the USSR would be finished for a long time already».

Obvious mistrust is caused by data of department of losses on a death-roll of German soldiers during defeat of armies of group "Center" by Red Army near Moscow: вермахта for December, 1941 and for January, 1942 almost in one and a half time it is less than figure of losses, than in July and August, 1941 when вермахт almost free moved on the Soviet earth.

And one more example. According to department of losses вермахта in January, 1943 was lost 37 thousand German soldiers, and the direct participant of Stalingradsky fight holding at that time high posts in German armies, including the chief of a staff of 17th army case, the major general G.Derr in the book «the Campaign on Stalingrad» (the collection «Fatal decisions») writes that «only from January, 24th on February, 2nd, 1943 was lost more than 100 thousand persons». Besides, the same days blockade of Leningrad has been broken through, and during fights one thousand soldiers вермахта was lost not.

As a whole data of department of losses вермахта cannot serve as the initial data for calculation of losses of armed forces of Germany in the Great Patriotic War.

There is other statistics of losses — statistics of burial places of soldiers вермахта. According to the appendix to the law of Germany «About preservation of places of a burial place» total number of the German soldiers who are in fixed burial places in territory of Soviet Union and the East Europe countries, makes 3 million 226 thousand people This figure can be accepted as initial for calculation of demographic losses вермахта, however it requires updating.

First, this figure considers only burial places of Germans, and in structure вермахта the great number of soldiers of other nationalities was at war: the Austrians (from them was lost 270 thousand people), судетские Germans and эльзасцы (was lost 230 thousand people) and representatives of other nationalities and the states (was lost 357 thousand people). From total number of the lost soldiers вермахта not on a share of the Soviet-German front 75—80 % are necessary a German nationality, i.e. 0,6-0,7 million people

Secondly, this figure concerns the beginning of 90th years of last century. For the past since then time search of German burial places in Russia, the CIS countries and countries of Eastern Europe proceeded. And messages appearing on this theme were insufficiently informative. So, for example, the Russian association of military memorials created in 1992, has informed that for 10 years of the existence has transferred to the German union on care of military burial places of data on burial places of 400 thousand soldiers вермахта. Whether However there were it again found out burial places or they are already considered in million 226 thousand figure 3 — not clearly. Unfortunately, the generalised statistics of again found out burial places of soldiers вермахта it was not possible to find. It is roughly possible to accept that the number of burial places of soldiers again found out over the last 10 years вермахта is in limits of 0,2-0,4 million people

Thirdly, many burial places of the lost soldiers вермахта on the Soviet earth have disappeared. For example, the participant of war Alexander Lebedintsev in the book "Fathers-commanders" results the story of one of local residents that forces on a burial place of German corpses after fights were not, therefore troupes dumped in a deep gully and, having brought down a gully wall, fell asleep them. In a spring high water a gully has washed away, and the rests of German burial places have carried away thawed snow in the river. Besides, as has noted Pohlebkin V.V. in the book «Great war and not taken place world», in woods and bogs of Novgorodchiny, Lithuania and Polesye till now exist hundred thousand anonymous tombs of the German soldiers who were lost in fights with Red Army, especially during spring approach of the Soviet armies in 1944 Roughly in such disappeared and anonymous tombs could be buried 0,4-0,6 million soldiers вермахта.

Fourthly, burial places of the German soldiers killed in fights with the Soviet armies in territory of Germany and the West European countries are not included in this data. According to R.Overmansa, only for last three spring months of war was lost an order of 1 million people As a whole on the German earth and in the West European countries in fights with Red Army was lost about 1,2-1,5 million soldiers вермахта.

At last, fifthly, the number of the buried included also soldiers вермахта, died "natural" death (0,1-0,2 million people).

As a whole demographic losses вермахта on the Soviet-German front make 5,4... 6,3 million people, from them 0,4 million were lost in a captivity.

This estimation will be co-ordinated with the figures resulted by Hitler on March, 16th, 1945 in рейхстаге: Germany in war has lost 12,5 million people, from them half killed. Considering that according to German historians of loss of German civilians victims by then made about 400 thousand foreheads, and on the Western front that has been killed about 300 thousand German soldiers, leaves that by March, 16th, 1945 on the Soviet-German front was lost about 5,5 million German soldiers (see talk page of Kursk) --Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mina
Hey there! 150.000 records in her complete career? This doesn't make sense at all! I bet she sold millions in such a long career and with so many albums to her credit. Maybe a mistake?! --LarkCGN (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mogol-Battisti (1969–1973)
Mogol-Battisti's success encouraged Luigi Albertelli to copy Battisti's style in "Fiume azzurro", which earned a place in the Top 100 of annual record sales in Italy. is a wrong statement and it's a personal opinion, above all. It takes a little time to check that the music was composed by Enrico Riccardi, while Luigi Albertelli wrote the lyrics. The fact that the author of the source did find similarities between two styles is a personal opinion and should not simply be put in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.84.164.66 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 82.84.164.66 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield GA Review
Hi Erikupoeg. The GA Review of the Dusty Springfield has started and is on hold to allow improvements to be made. Please go to Talk:Dusty Springfield/GA1 to see fuller comments. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mina (Italian singer) GA

 * Hi, in addition I have referred this rather cursory review and pass for coimmunity reassessment at WP:Good article reassessment/Mina (Italian singer)/1. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of battles by casualties
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of battles by casualties, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bobbie Gentry2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Bobbie Gentry2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Samantha Jones.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Samantha Jones.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carmen Villani.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Carmen Villani.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mina1972.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Mina1972.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mina Letter
Heya, sorry about the delay & here is the translation. My friend says it is not perfect as she is out of practice :) but that it's not (from an italian perspective) a complex piece of text so it should make sense. Let me know how it goes! --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Letter
Gentile Staff di minamazzini.com,

Scriviamo a nome di Wikimedia Foundation. Attualmente a Wikimedia mancano delle immagini di Mina le quali possiamo usare nei articoli che le parlano.

È la nostra politica di usare solamente le immagini che sono autorizzate liberamente. Per esempio, le foto che sono libere a tutti da copiare, distribuire e trasmettere.

Il procedimento standard per i proprietari delle foto è di liberare queste foto sotto la 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Potete trovare i dettagli su http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.

Vi chiediamo gentilmente per una donazione con la liberazione delle immagini di Mina sotto la licenza le quali darano il sostegno al commento critico della sua apparenza e della sua immagine nel articolo su Mina di Wikipedia (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/Mina (Italian singer)).

Il lavoro sarà attribuito nel modo in cui volete come autore (ma non in un modo che suggerisce che fate pubblicità a Wikimedia Foundation.

Per più informazioni vi preghiamo di non esitare di contattarci.

Dusty Springfield - the cover!
Oh, yes! It is awkward when there are two different covers of an album - one American, and one British. The American readers wish to see the cover they recognise, and the British readers wish to see the cover they recognise. What to do? The general guidance is that where the topic has ties to a particular country, and there are alternative spellings, phrases, grammar, terminology, etc, that the choice should be the usage that is most associated with that country. There is a template that can be placed on the talkpage - British English. While I don't think there is a specific guideline regarding which album cover version to use, the ethos is that if there are two versions, then use the one most appropriate for the topic. I assumed from your edit summary that your change to the American cover was done thinking that the British cover was actually a later CD resissue. My restoring of the original British cover was done because I thought you had made a mistake, and also because the use of the British cover appears to me to be the most appropriate and falls within Wikipedia ethos, guidelines and consensus. It wasn't done out of malice or anything! I assumed I was simply correcting a small error. I am also aware that Systemic bias sometimes means that non-American topics can can be dealt with from an American perspective, which erodes national identity, so I am always a little concerned when I see some topics being too Americanised. Just a little though. It's a quiet awareness, not anything I will rampage about!

On the GA front, I am hoping to complete this soon. It has taken much, much longer than I had originally anticipated, and has become something of an albatross around my neck! I am determined, however, to pass the article, and will plough on, checking the statements, and ensuring broad coverage. Regards as always.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Omakaitse
Hi, per guidelines you shouldn't make manual (copy-paste) moves when moving a page for a new title. I couldn't move it to the other direction by the usual practice before (both versions of a possible title have a page history), I know it is troublesome but so a sysop must be contacted to do the job. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield
I really wanted to take this all the way to GA status, but it is taking too long, and I have to move on now. There are still sourcing issues to be dealt with, and coverage of Springfield's life and career needs more attention. I am still keen to help out and intend to return to the article when I have time so that the article can be listed as a good article sometime in the future (not too far hopefully!). Good luck with the article, and thanks for your patience.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the effort. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review
You may not be aware of it, but I've started a review of your article at Talk:Tallinn Offensive/GA2.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to be able to address the points about completeness I made in the review? If so I'll wait another week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, I will try to address these within a week. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but if you could add page numbers for cite #7, I'd pass the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:035 Dusty Springfield - You Don't Have To Say You Love Me.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:035 Dusty Springfield - You Don't Have To Say You Love Me.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Leningrad and Baltics 1941-1944
In this book:



p. 410: ''The Leningrad, Volkhov and 2nd Baltic Front's Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive was immensely significant. [...] During the course of 45 days.''

In Krivosheev's casualties book:


 * Google translation

The offensive is also written as lasting until March 1.D2306 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware of that. What you are missing is that the Kingisepp wing of the offensive was over already by 2 February when the 2nd Shock Army captured the town and established the bridgeheads across the Narva river. Just follow this map. The rest of the offensive continued mainly towards Pskov. The Narva offensive of 15-28 February is not included either in the Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take your point.D2306 (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's best then to combine all the Narva fighting into one link from the Leningrad&Baltic template and create a new Narva campaign template. All I am trying to do is to make the Leningrad campaignbox less clogged-up. D2306 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Front
I changed your last edits to this. By stressing the fact that the Baltic states were annexed illegally, you imply that other territories were annexed legally, which was not always the case. Since the infoboxes are not supposed to discuss such nuances, I suggest to leave this issue beyond the scope of this infobox, because the links to appropriate articles are already there, so the reader will be able to obtain all needed information by himself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained, the plain term 'annexation' is incorrect for the Baltic case as it implies a de jure incorporation. I don't have enough knowledge for the Polish and Bessarabian cases. If any of the incorporations was illegal, the infobox should not claim it was simply an annexation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * De jure non necessarily means "legal". Thus, the USSR incorporated both Kresy and Estonia de jure: both these territories became a part of the USSR: their status was the same as that of other Soviet territories, Soviet laws acted there without restrictions, Soviet citizenship was granted to the population of newly annexed lands (although, as a rule, against their will). By all possible criteria it was incorporation de jure. However, many foreign states did not recognise this de jure incorporation as legal, and, according to the Malksoo's analysis we can speak about violation of the international laws here. By separating the Baltic case from other Soviet annexations you imply that the latters were made in accordance with international laws, which is not always correct. I suggest you to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * De jure "means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact"". The Baltics became part of the Soviet Union de facto, meaning their legal status was internationally different from other territories of the Soviet Union, the Soviet laws acted there illegally and the population retained the citizenship of their native countries throughout the illegal annexation. According to every international convention, court of human rights and scholar of law, the Baltics were  never de jure part of the Soviet Union. That is exactly why the Baltics are separated in the infobox. As I said, I am not familiar with the other cases in the infobox. If you feel the Soviet incorporation of the other listed regions is wrong, feel free to fix them. The Baltic states concerned, the term "illegal annexation" is the correct one, whereas plain "annexation" is false. Please consult Mälksoo's works for the terms. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Paul and "Thus, the USSR incorporated both Kresy and Estonia de jure: both these territories became a part of the USSR...", no this contention is completely incorrect. For the incorporation to be de jure, it has to be lawful under:
 * the country to which sovereignty is being acceded (this would be your point re: USSR)
 * the country ceding sovereignty—not the case for any of the Baltic states, all patently illegal acts by puppet governments installed by an occupying power, that includes illegal and not in keeping with the constitutions of those states, e.g., Latvia required a direct plebiscite
 * lawful according to all international treaties and accords whether bilateral or multilateral—again, not the case for the Baltic states as the USSR abrogated numerous treaties
 * So, in the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states, only one out of three conditions (that is, the occupying/annexing power considered the incorporation legal according to its rules) were "satisfied" to consider the incorporations legal. I suggest you read up on your understanding of international law. By no criteria were the incorporations legal under international law. (Indeed, even the pacts of mutual assistance are considered illegal as they were coerced, although "technically" legal, but another topic.) P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 19:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Latvian independence war
Eesti peab olema Lätist "ees" samal põhjusel miks Vene SSR on Läti SSRist ees selles tabelis. Peamine võitlus oli Eesti väed versus Vene/Läti punased ja saksalased. Lätlased muidugi aitasid ka aga olid sekundaared, hea näitena toon Võnnu lahingu.

Oleme ajalooliselt korrektsed ja paneme "Estonia" ette ja "Latvia" teiseks. Sellepärast, et see oli "Läti vabadussõda", ei tähenda, et nemad seal peamist rolli mängisid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl The Estonian (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A totally incorrect, Estonian POV. The Estonians dominated in the war only from April to July 1919 acting not independently but under the auspices of the Latvian government. In the next thirteen months of warfare from July 1919 to August 1920, the Estonian forces were insignificant, with the Battle of Riga in October as the only battle they participated in, while the Latvian army played the main role instead. A fortiori, the Landeswehr-Estonian war concluded by the battle of Wenden (1919) did not even decide the conflict between the Latvian government and the pro-German forces as the latter remained active until the conclusive battle of Riga and the final battles in November 1919. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree with me, if I say that Latvia would not have gained independence, without Estonian interference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl The Estonian (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do but Latvian inteference was even more crucial. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Problem with File:Livonia in 1534 (Engilsh).PNG
Ingliskeelne kirjeldus lisatud Commonsisse. Athanasius Soter (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you deserve this ;-)
Thank You! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

 * Где же я вас обыдел? Это известний факт, что бытва за Цесис была самой большой бытвой для Эстонской армии во время её воыни за независомость. Наверника потому и вы так дрожити про эту тему)) Нейтральность это святое дело если вы пишите про историю, так что не нада смотреть на эту тему через прызму эмоций... --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Someri
I saw you deleted a section from the text.. Main reference to the naval engagement as actually one being fought between navies. And not of convoy escaping under air attacks through minefield. It is true that Tallinn evacuation (or even Hanko evacuation) was order of magnitude larger than the battle fought at Someri. But those were not really surface naval engagements. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There were torpedo boats enaged in 1941, so it is unfair not to call it a naval battle. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Latvian independence war
I find listing Latvians and Germans as being on the same side highly questionable. May I suggest you list sides according to their aims and loyalities, rather than by who fought with whom? AFAIK the union between Latvian and German forces was forced by international politics and was not in their own best interests - just because they weren't openly fighting each other dosen't mean they were on the same side. Also less openly Germans overthrew Latvian government and according to some speculations shot Kalpaks on purpose. The way you have it Latvian army supported it untill some treaty suddenly made them change their mind. Xil (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The 1st Independent Latvian Brigade (South Latvian Brigade) commanded by Kalpaks and later Balodis was not just fighting on the same side with the German forces but placed under the direct command of the VI Reserve Corps until 2 July 1919. This means even after the German coup d'état on 16 April, the Latvian brigade's subordination remained the same. It makes it really hard to exclude the Latvian unit that took direct orders from the German headquarters. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe infobox should explain general situation, so reader can have information at glance, instead of reading the whole thing. By being overly precise you create wrong impresion, therefore I think it would be way more usefull to use de facto situation, instead of de iure. Even if they were formaly under German command, there was infighting and Balodis never attacked other Latvian forces. Besides Balodis was commander of Latvian army in later stages of war, which previosuly was reflected. Xil  (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing overly specific or complicated here. The 1st Latvian Independent Brigade operated de facto as part of the German army group from 6 February to 2 July 1919. The Latvian brigade was instrumental in the capture of Jelgava in the German offensive in 3-13 March 1919, attacking it together with the Iron Brigade and the battle group of Prince Lieven. Regardless of the German coup d'etat on 16 April, the Latvian brigade participated in the German capture of Riga on 22 May. Subsequently the German headquarters ordered the deployment of the brigade to the Liela Jugla River alongside Prince Lieven, with its manoeuvers creating an embarrassing situation for the 3rd Estonian Division and its subject Latvian 2nd Cesis Regiment (as reported by Major General Reek). On 3 June Colonel Zemitans requested colonel Balodis to join the North Latvian Brigade, with no answer. Hence they were not just formally under the German command but participated actively in their operations.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, it might be more usefull to find an option to divide infobox in stages, given that way Germans constantly swiched sides Xil  (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is entirely false. The German headquarters never switched side nor even policy, they were straightforwardly pro-German, and anti-Soviet and anti-Latvian throughout the war, fighting the Soviets and executing a hostile policy towards the national Provisional Government of Latvia from the very beginning to the end. If ever there was a switch of side then it was the 1st Latvian Independent Brigade which switched from the German side to the North Latvian Brigade's, as first requested by Colonel Zemitans and later sanctioned by the Treaty of Strazdumuiža. As far as the Provisional Government of Ulmanis is concerned, after the coup d'etat, they remained passive, refusing to cooperate with the Estonian Commander in Chief and hoping for an agreement with the German headquarters (as reported by Major General Soots). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my point exactly - why do you want them allied with Latvians when it is clear that this alience was only formal? If Southern forces were uncertain what to do, it dosen`t mean they fought against their own country - such details can be explained in text and if you want it in infobx, you can very well write in there that Latvian forces were split in two parts, instead of moving them to other side Xil  (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The alliance was far from being just formal, as the Latvian brigade participated actively in the German operations subordinated to their headquarters, and played an important part in the victory over the Soviets. The alliance had a clear termination when the Latvian brigade was released from the German command and switched over to the Allied side. The infobox is not necessarily claiming Latvia fought against Latvia, just like it is not claiming Poland fought against the German corps, nevertheless it lists Poland and the German forces on separate belligerent sides. The infobox is merely stating the fact that the Latvian army fought on the German side until 2 July. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The box was designed as having three sides - pro-soviet, pro-german and pro(or atleast not anti-)-latvian. Your method is counter-intuitive and I still fail to see its advantages over what we had before. If we would list all sides in accordance with who was under whose command we will end up with many more sides. You say that having units on diffrent sides dosen't mean they fought against each other, so why can't it be that on some occasions different sides fought together?  Xil  (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All I am saying is it is false not to list a force that took part in two German offensives, placed under the German command for five months. The 1st Latvian Independent brigade was notable enough to warrant a listing in the infobox and not just an ally of the German side, but furthermore its subject. We could consider what you are proposing ("on some occasions different sides fought together") if the Latvian brigade defected or resisted the German side after the coup d'etat on 16 April. However, this was not the case as they remained under the German command until 2 July hence showing no separate will in their actions. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh... Estonians would make perfect spies, you know - it is imposible to get out information needed from you guys :) We can argue endlesly as to why they didn't feel like attacking Germans right away (got some good theories there), but what I've been trying to find out - what is wrong with listing them according to their loyalities in the infobox and explaining that they fought Soviets together in article? The way you have it we could divide it in even more sides (probably British, Poles and what not weren't under command of these sides) or we could merge it in two sides (which would look confusing, but is basicly the same thing - just instead of moving Latvians under Germans, you move Germans over to our side) Xil  (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be wrong with excluding the 1st Latvian Independent Brigade from the German allies would be that it would not accord to the fact that the brigade was subordinated to the German side. I don't see what is so complicated about it. Ulmanis kept open two doors: the Allied and the German side, allowing the 1st Independent Latvian Brigade to operate under German command and simultaneously allowing the North Latvian Brigade to be created on the Allied side. Both of the brigades were loyal to the Ulmanis government, just one of them fought as part of the Estonian army and the other one as part of the German force. On 2 July 1919 the South Latvian Brigade crossed over to the Allied side. These are the facts the infobox conveys right now. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see - you interpret it as having Estonian side and German side. There is major problem with that - everyone was allied against Soviets, Latvians didn't cross to that side, Germans just chose to ignore allies in favour of their own interests. Estonians merely helped form the northen army and took part in one major battle. This was Latvian war, not Estonian. Xil  (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The German army and Estonia were enemies throughout the war. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop and think - was Latvian independence war fought by Estonians or by Latvians? I believe your army was there on agreement with our government and pretty much ended to take part after securing their own country in battle of Cēsis. Up to that point Estonians also were forlmaly allied to Germans Xil  (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the source for this outrageous claim? "Formally allied to Germans"? What kind of formal agreement are you talking about? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, have you ever read Edit warring? You just crossed the 3rr line, so this is the last warning before I report you. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A highschool history book - "Estonians had allready occupied Cēsis and refused to let their German allies enter". Entente had intended for Germans to stay in Baltics to help locals fight off Soviets - don't they teach you that in Estonia? And also IMO it would make no sense for Germans to have coup d'etat if Latvian army would have been able to fight them - it probably was more sane for them to remain with Germans and fight Soviets at that point. And I reverted you only once due to edit conflict, first time dosen't count as revert within 24 hours as you changed infobox two days ago and the second time I was changing something else and didn't notice you reverted me. At any rate I am still hoping that you will realise that you are wrong on your own and revert yourself Xil  (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion has drifted far off the topic. If you feel like adding Germany as an ally of the Entente until 5 June 1919 when open warfare broke out against Estonia - go ahead, try how it works out. But that does not change the fact that the Latvian brigade participated in the German campaigns in spring. Please prove the contrary or restore the sourced facts. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad
IMHO this was not cleanup. You replaced "Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg)", which was ugly but perfectly sufficient, by a single link to a disambiguation page. There are no links to the city in the lead text after your edits, make such things more carefully next time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and restore the content. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Some clarification
I am a bit surprised at your points of view at the Mila Kunis talkpage... I thought everybody in Estonia will do anything to displease the Soviet Union leadership; including it's attempts of Russification... I'm sure you are well aware that if the Kremlin would have treated Ukrainian in the Ukrainian SSR as a language equal (thus as a second language in reality and not only in name) to Russian Mila would be able to speak Ukrainian now... Anyhow are Estonians not that anti-Soviet any more? —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  20:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to put national feelings aside in Wikipedia. It is not about what would be but what is. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not always that simple... Your reasoning was based on what de-facto was, mine an what was de-jure... (since Ukrainian was an official language in the USSR). But I agree with the principal. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Estonian cyclists
Hi Jaan, do you have a source for the edit at 2011 Estonian cyclists abduction that says Martin Metspalu is a dentist? AFP was saying he's a university lecturer: "One victim was identified by his father as Martin Metspalu, a leading scientist who heads the biotechnology department at the University of Tartu in southeast Estonia." Please add a source for the dentist edit if there's one in English. Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that you added a source. Great.—Biosketch (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Andres Metspalu leads the Dept. of Biotechnology at the University of Tartu, not his son, who is a dentist. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)