User talk:Nihlus1

Welcome!
Hello, Nihlus1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battles of Khalkhin Gol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armored cars. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681277142 your edit] to Pacific War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * //books.google.com/books?id=ow5Wlmu9MPQC&amp;q=27%2C000#v=snippet&amp;q=27%2C000&amp;f=false|1] , around 9,400 Dutch killed including 8,500 who died in captivity (likely not including

Reference errors on 26 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Burma Campaign page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=682813788 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F682813788%7CBurma Campaign%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Grozny (August 1996), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page APC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Casualties in WW2
Hi, You may find this of interest. the author is Bianxiu Yue who has done work on China's war losses. I used Google translate to read it. Also I have put the numerical data on an Excel spreadsheet. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You may find this of interest: John Dower cited this source for Japanese casualties (see pages 22/23)

昭和財政史　終戦から講和まで　第１９巻 Shōwa zaiseishi : shūsen kara kōwa made. Dai 19-kan, Tōkei 昭和財政史 : 終戦から講和まで. 第19卷, 統計 / Shōwa zaiseishi : shūsen kara kōwa made. Dai 19-kan, Tōkei Author:	大蔵省財政史室編. ; ; Japan. Ōkurashō. Zaiseishishitsu, Publisher:	東洋経済新報社, Tōkyō-to Chūō-ku : Tōyō Keizai Shinpōsha, Shōwa 53 [1978]

Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dower also cited this Japanese source (page 241) for Sino Japanese war casualties- Showa Shi (昭和史)– 1959 by Shigeki Toyama (外山, 茂樹) (Author), Seiichi Imai (Author), Akira Fujiwara (Author)

Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. '' FYI, your edit, here, caused a lot of red error messages in the references section. Please take a look to see how it can be fixed 220  of '' Borg 11:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Torch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian campaign. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi, Nihlus1. I'm leaving this brief note to inform you that I am heading over to the Edit Warring page to report you for repeatedly deleting reliably-sourced content. It will take me a couple minutes to complete the report, which should give you time to self-revert your deletion. Just so you know, if you personally disagree with sourced content, you need to explain your concerns on the article Talk page, rather than try to just edit-war content out of the article. If you feel PBS "made up" the number, as your last edit summary says, you need to explain why on the Talk page. As far as I know, that PBS source is generally considered reliable. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Xeno. Looking at the page now, I realize my mistake- I thought that Rummel and Tucker were being cited as the source for civilian casualties, while the PBS citation was just for the number of lost aircraft. Tucker gave 52,000 civilians as the number killed during the operation, with the CIA giving the number as 72,000, while Rummel gave 90,000 - 180,000 as the number killed by American and South Vietnamese bombing and shelling for the entire war.--Nihlus1 (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll refrain from submitting the WP:AN3 report on the 4 deletions in under 12 hours. Mistakes happen. I suspected you might not be looking at the right citation (hence my suggestion to look at the end of the cited sentence). Casualty estimates will always be varied, sometimes with a significant variance between high and low estimates. The PBS estimate isn't even the highest estimate out there for civilian deaths during Rolling Thunder. Will you be reverting your latest deletion of the 182,000 figure, or will you be disputing that estimate? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll revert it. I don't feel like disputing sources for the Vietnam War.--Nihlus1 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Burma Campaign 1942–43 page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=686842669 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F686842669%7CBurma Campaign 1942–43%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burma Campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengal famine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Operation Inherent Resolve page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=688599431 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F688599431%7COperation Inherent Resolve%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign Legion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Revolutionary Guards article
any reply? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terrorism in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Han. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pacific War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Timorese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern Front (World War II), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern Front (World War II), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction at WW2 Casualties
According to the source cited Congressional Research Report – American War and Military Operations Casualties  Army deaths in WW2 were 318,274 (234,874 battle, 83,400 nonbattle), The Congressional Research Report has the official U.S. government casualty figures. I don't where you found the numbers you posted, but they are wrong!--Woogie10w (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The source cited by the Congressional Research Service is the US Dept. of Defense, Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS). You can check their data at --Woogie10w (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was using "US ARMY BATTLE AND NONBATTLE DEATHS IN WORLD WAR 2: FINAL REPORT", pages 96-98.--Nihlus1 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nihlus1 the difference of 9,256 are those deaths of POW and those listed as MIA. See page 7 of US ARMY BATTLE AND NONBATTLE DEATHS IN WORLD WAR 2: FINAL REPORT". For official US-DOD purposes the battle casualties are 234,874. Most of the POW deaths were in Japanese captivity. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Also Nihlus1 I have been on Wikipedia for ten years and obey the rules. I noticed that you changed the figures at WW2 Casualties and left the same source, the Congressional Research Service report. The credibility of Wikipedia is on the line when the source cited does not agree with the information posted. I always check my postings and make sure that it is backed up by a reliable source that can be verified. As a rule of thumb I keep a hard copy of my sources. If there is a dispute or need for verification, I will provide a jpg via email. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Sorry, I thought the numbers were the same between both official records (that report is also cited on the page) and someone had made a small error in the listing.--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nihlus1, I appreciate your corrections, but please try to be more carefully. Your recent edit at Western Allied invasion of Germany: here is flawed. For the monthly casualty rate, Overmans included dead POWs but excluded the living POW held. He listed for the entire year 1945 a total loss of 1,230,045 in the final battles; 57,495 in other theaters and 252,188 POWs. If you summ up the loss rates from Jan. to May in the monthly table, you receive:


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Year !! January !! February !! March !! April !! May !! Total
 * 1945 || 451,742 ||294,772|| 284,442 || 281,848 ||94,528 ||1,407,332
 * }
 * }


 * As it was stated before, the total loss for the Final Battle in 1945 is 1,230,045. So you have to subtract it, which would then give 177,287 death POWs and probably also include a number of losses to other theatre. So, your given loss of ~220,000 is not correct and likely to be much lower. BeansHere (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the number should be a bit lower; the three month (March, April, May) death tolls I used were for total deaths and would include POW deaths and deaths in other theaters, as you said. However, I don't think the toll would be "much lower". I was aware it wasn't 100% accurate, hence the "~", but given the small difference (13%) between the deaths in those months when just counting battles in Germany (1,230,045) and counting everything (1,407,332), I don't think the difference would be that big. So I think the number on there is reasonably accurate and much better than not putting any of Overmans' data there at all. I don't actually own that book, I was basically just copying info from one page onto another, so maybe it actually does break down the deaths specifically in Germany by month, but I doubt it.--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it is better than nothing, the number appear to high. If you subtract it, the loss of POW and the number for other theatres would rank up to 177,287 in total, 35,457 per month or 106,372 for 3 months. That gives an estimated of 113,628 dead to the previous 220,000, a very significant difference. However, considering the estimated loss represented by Zaloga and Dennis in the lead of the article, 120,000 dead, 280,000 captured, I think we are somewhat close to what we could expect.


 * Something else I have noted in the same article. Since you don't own the book, why you stated that Overmans would not include naval and air losses? (here). However, Woogie10w was so kindly and generous to offer me the relevant pages after request. It is by now clear, that Overmans does include them, as he declared to account all the casualties of each service branch from 1 January 1945 onwards. Regards BeansHere (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I declared he does not count naval and air losses, because that is what the Wikipedia page said. German casualties in World War II has a category of "Other" on that Overmans table, which it said included naval and air losses in the war above/around Germany. It does not appear to say that anymore, so that was probably just some error a guy made way back when that stuck there for a while; but that is making me wonder about what IS included in the "Other" category, since it clearly doesn't overlap with the "final battles in Germany" category (right now it's listed as "Germany, naval, Poland, etc."; which is confusing). I would note that the estimate by Zaloga and Dennis is not for the campaign specified on the page, but rather for parts of it (Plunder and Lumberjack) in early March prior to the main thrust; all it really says is that the casualties must be much, much higher than that. Now, on POW deaths, it appears you made a mistake; you subtracted the 106,372 all from the Western Allied invasion numbers rather than for the German numbers as a whole. That'd mean, discounting POWs and other theaters, 554,446 German soldiers were killed in action in those three months (284,442 + 281,848 + 94,528 = 660,818, 660,818 - 106,372 = 554,446). 1/3 of those were attributable to the Western Allies, putting the German military's death toll from the invasion at ~185,000. I just hope that's not considered too much extrapolation, because Overmans' data is by far the best we have.
 * On another issue related to Overmans' study, Woogie10w, I have to ask: you said that Overmans said that total losses in the west were 1 million, compared to 4 million in the east. I'm almost 100% certain that he's just referring to deaths there, not overall losses including wounded, as you said on the German casualties in World War II page and Western Front (World War II) page. Mostly because that would imply that, one, pretty much no troops were wounded without being killed on the Eastern Front (2,742,909 killed until 12/31/44, 820,000 in Germany, ~350,000 as POWs, tens of thousands more in German-Soviet battles in the Balkans and Finland), and two, that the Germans had one of the highest killed vs wounded ratios in history on the Western Front at 1:3. Then again I suppose a lot of the prisoners taken were wounded too, and wouldn't be double counted as also being wounded casualties...? What's the deal?--Nihlus1 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is indeed confusing, but as I recall, the naval (infantry) casualties in "Other" category, are mainly attributed to the evacuations in East Prussia, as Overmans stated. However, sea and air casualties should be included in the Final Battle aswell. Yes, your right, the correct number would be around 185,000.


 * Overmans gives a ratio of approx. 1:4 for the causalties for West and East. Yes, he is referring to deaths only. The problem was, that I did not have all the relevant pages accessible on GBS (Google Book Search) when I made that suggestion. Overmans spoked about included wounded, but the exact context was missing. After requesting Woogie10w for assistance, I know it better. Overmans included those which died of their wounds, during transportation, illness, infections, suicide etc. As those status reports on the wounded, do not list their fate or that they would have died later on. Regards. BeansHere (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, though, shouldn't the "Others" not include deaths caused by the naval and air war? I can't see any other way that "Other" can include "Germany, naval, etc.". The "Final Battles" category and "Other" category are clearly counted separately there...


 * Hmmmm. So in that case, the Western Front (World War II) page should say 1 million German soldiers were killed, not killed or wounded (the Allied total includes people who died of wounds or illnesses in the theater). Wounded numbers remain unknown (unless he lists them somewhere too?) but should probably be around 2 million going by the normal killed to wounded ratio. However, I have to ask: does that number include Italy, naval battles, and German military deaths caused by the air war, especially by strategic bombing?--Nihlus1 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Overmans stated that the "Others" category included all Operations with either marginal casualties, which separate assignment would not make much sense, or contained cases of dead sentences which could no be assigned (Marine).

In German: "Die Kategorie "Restliche Kriegschauplätze" ist dagegen heterogen - hier wurden alle Operationen zusammengefasst, bei denen die Verluste so gering waren dass die seperate Ausweisung kaum aussagekräftigen Ergebnissen führen würde. Hinzu kommen Fälle, die sich kein Land-Kriegschauplatz zuordnen lassen, vor allem also solche von Marinenangehörigen" p.174

However, he still breaks down the "Others" category with following percentages:


 * over 50% Volksturm, + an unknown percentage of Police and other paramilitary forces in homedefense.
 * 20% POW casualties
 * 22% Navy (19% Infantry deployment for evacuation in East Prussia, plus 3% sea casualties of unknown dead sentences)

In German: "Deutlich grösser ist der Anteil der Kategorie "Sonstige" worunter hier der Volkssturm, die Polizei und die paramilitärischen Verbände zusammengefasst werden. Es ist vor allem auf den Volkssturm zurückzuführen, dass in dieser Guppe mehr als 50% Przent aller Verluste auf die Endkämpfe entfällt, aber dass diese Gruppe mit ca. 20 Prozent Todesfällen in Kriegsgefangenschaft [...]

"Ähnlich verhält es sich bei der Marine. Der hohe Anteil an Marineverlusten auf den "Sonstigen" Kriegschauplätzen is erfassungstechnisch bedingt - die Marinelverluste sind insgesamt so gering, das eine differenzierte Ausweisung keine aussagekräftigen Ergebnisse liefern könnte. Erstaunen mag auch die mit ca. 19 Prozent relative grosse Bedeutung der Endkäpmfe für die Marine - es handelt sich dabei vor allem um Todesfälle im zusammenhang von der Evakuierung aus Ostpreussen und die Verluste im Infanterieeinatz. Trotzdem, mit einem Gesamtanteil von weniger als 3 Prozent is die Bedeutung der Marine unter Verlustaspekten marginal." p.268

For the Luftwaffe, (Luftabwehr, Flakdivisionen, Luftwaffenfelddivisionen, fliegende Verbände) he does not give a concrete percentage but stated that the majority was for infantry deployment, whereas all personel were assigned, regardless of whether they were trained and or equipped.

For the Western Front (World War II) page, I would describe the ~ 1 Million, as per killed, missing, died of wounds and illnesses, and with other dead sentences included. Unfortunately, Overmans do not list wounded, but put those which died of their wounds at 500,165. See table "Cause of Death" here: German casualties in World War II

Since I don't own the book either, I can't say if some of the causualties esp. in the Final Batlle, Italy, Naval were caused by by strategic bombing. Maybe Woogie10w can give you some further explaination, but for now, thats all what I can say. I hope it helps. Regards BeansHere (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Nihlus1, I have refined German casualties on Western Allied invasion of Germany, according to our extrapolation of around 185,000 death. Seems you have missed it. Hope it's alright, feel free to make further corrections. Regards BeansHere (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drone strikes in Pakistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Militant. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Burma Campaign page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=706196531 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F706196531%7CBurma Campaign%5D%5D Ask for help])

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please stop edit warring
Hello, Given that you haven't obtained consensus for those changes to the infobox at Talk:European theatre of World War II, making the same change at Defence of the Reich with an edit summary explicitly carrying that dispute across wasn't well considered. It would be good if you didn't do this again, as it's disruptive and really not good practice. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed that you were also edit warring in the European theatre of World War II article by remaking that change while the discussion was still ongoing . Please stop this. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Isn't it only edit warring if I'm changing the status quo without consensus? Because that page had been that way for about a month, since I posted my explanation with citations in the talk back in February. I assumed that since there was no objection until today, it was fine? Thanks.--Nihlus1 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion at Talk:European theatre of World War II is obviously ongoing, with you and Colonialmarine9 swapping vast talk page posts from about 2 days ago to today:, , , . See WP:DR if you want advice on how to handle disputes - declaring victory and edit warring across articles isn't it. Re: New Guinea campaign‎: the same kind of things hold. If you want to make an argument that the USN played a larger role in that campaign through its operations in waters distant from New Guinea, please provide sources which argue this. The sources I'm familiar with stress that this was an Australian-US campaign involving all the services of both countries in key roles. The large-scale Japanese casualties mainly occurred after the Allied ground and air forces had completed their movements along the coast of New Guinea, with the Japanese being isolated in the centre of the island and its west. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, it's only an ongoing dispute as of the last 24 hours. For the past month or so my February edit stuck with no objection after I posted my logic, so shouldn't it be the other guy who's guilty of edit warring and in need of a warning? Also, on the New Guinea page, I provided a source which says most Japanese troops who died there, died of disease due to the naval blockade, without ever seeing an enemy. Or is "playing a larger role" not defined by how many enemy deaths you cause?--Nihlus1 (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This proves that you made stuff up here to excuse your continued edit warring - your "weeks" weren't even a month, and you provided no sources to substantiate your claim. I will report you for this if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but did you even look at the edit reasoning in question? I did give a source weeks ago: the United States Strategic Bombing Survey on the "Strategic Bombing during World War II" page. And it was "weeks" ago (about 3), I don't see what it not being more than four has to do with anything. No one else has provided any other source or reasoning.--Nihlus1 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Defence of the Reich and other articles
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Per a complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If this matter is important to you, consider using an WP:RFC or other method of WP:Dispute resolution. Continuing to revert is not an option. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Iranian casualties
The latest overall SOHR toll from today states that Iranian combatants are counted among the non-Syrian pro-government forces. So, the Iranian dead figure needs to go beside that number, in brackets, otherwise it would be double-counting to separate them. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

East African Campaign (World War I)
I altered your citation to the usual format but couldn't find the statistical information on money following the url you added, where did I go wrong? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The URL works fine for me. It displays the UK's defense budget circa 1914 as 78.6 million pounds.--Nihlus1 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see 2016 and a link to measuring worth . c o m but that's it.Keith-264 (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't know what's up on your end. Maybe try just going to http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ and selecting the year 1914? It's the first website that comes up when you google "UK Public Spending".
 * Found it! It had been coming up 2016 earlier, rather than 1914, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Questionable edits
Can you explain why you changed referenced figures in this article? When clearly the Spencer Tucker source states 20,000 Ottoman casualties and 12,000 Russian casualties.

Do you have evidence that the figures you changed in this article are supported by Tucker, Spencer. "World War 1: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection". ABC-CLIO, Page 1079? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The 20,000 VS 12,000 figures were specifically for the Battle of Koprukoy, as stated in Allen and Paul Muratoff's "Caucasian Battlefields", page 342, and Wikipedia lists that as only part of the Erzurum Offensive. In addition to that were 9,000 casualties for the Russians and 15,000 for the Ottomans in the taking of the fortress of Erzurum itself, as stated on "Caucasian Battlefields" page 363. This puts casualties for those two battles at 21,000 Russian (17,000 if you don't include disease/frostbite cases) vs 35,000 Ottomann. This was cited in the body of the article. You also didn't appear to read fully the Tucker source, which reiterates that the Russians and Ottomans took 9,000 and 15,000 casualties respectively in the taking of the fortress of Erzurum in addition to the previously mentioned 12,000 and 20,000 figures. Page 648.--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So let me see if I have this correct. You first changed the figures, without any explanation in the edit summary. Then removed said references again without explanation.


 * "You also didn't appear to read fully the Tucker source...."
 * No, I simply read the page which was referenced, since there was no explanation as to why it was removed or why the figures were changed. Considering you have been blocked for edit warring, you might start explaining your edits. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Extra scripts for editing
If you like adding wikilinks it might help if you set up a page like User:Keith-264/common.js and install importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); so you can check if you've duplicated them in error. importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); is also very useful. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Figures @ German casualties
Please note well that the figure of U.S. 202k deadin the 1945 Marshall report are for the Army in combat only, the higher figure from 1956 of 407k also includes the Navy and Marine Corps as well as non combat dead ie. accidents and natural causes while in service Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Also Italian fascist forces fought in the Italian campaign until the end of the war. See Italian Social Republic. The 1945 Marshall report is correct to include Italians!!--Woogie10w (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem; the figures given in the report clearly only refer to Germans. For example it lists 7,100 POWs as being taken on Siciliy and 130,000 in Tunisia. Yet earlier in the same document, it said 252,000 Germans and Italians combined were taken prisoner in Tunisia. But 130,000 does perfectly match other figures for German POWs. Thus, the numbers can only be referring to the Germans in all cases.--Nihlus1 (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem the source says Italians and includes killled as well POW. There is a note there that says 100,000 Italians were released.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Note well: on Wikipedia we report what a source says, not what we believe to be correct--Woogie10w (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That still wouldn't fit the figures. Also refer to the 7,100 POW figure given for the Allied invasion of Sicily; that cannot possibly refer to Italians. But, like the figure for Tunisia, matches the German figures perfectly.--Nihlus1 (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nihlus1 there is no problem. Please see the note below the table (A) 252,415 Germans and Italians were captured in Tunisia .According to the Imperial War Museum Following the Italian surrender in 1943, 100,000 Italians volunteered to work as 'co-operators'. They were given considerable freedom and mixed with local people. Italian fascist forces fought in the Italian campaign until the end of the war with the Italian Social Republic.  --Woogie10w (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nihlus1 I have been on Wikipedia 11 years. When I started to edit my goal was to put the correct data @ WW2 casualties. I realized that there were no correct figures for WW2 casualties, only reliable sources that contradict one another. In any case I would not be surprised if the spouses of many historians balance the family checkbook, the single historians are in bankruptcy court--Woogie10w (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning Edit warring Syria intervention
I want to remind you that you should restrain yourself in editing articles without consulting the talk page. I've undone your edit as it was open for discussion. --Wrant (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

German casualties on the Western Front
Undid removal of my comments about Rüdiger Overmans' statistical nonsense. Don't see why Wikipedia readers should be fed that nonsense uncommented, just because Overmans' study was sponsored by the German Ministry of Defense.Cortagravatas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a violation of the rule of No original research. Leave your arguments and allegations on whatever forums you frequent.--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What I provided was not so much "original research" as a reality check of the claim, implied in Overmans' book, that Germany suffered about 410,000 military fatalities fighting the Western Allies between January and May 1945. That claim is so nonsensical that it shouldn't show on a Wikipedia page if the goal of Wikipedia is to provide information and not disinformation. Let me explain why that claim makes no sense whatsoever:
 * 1. Together with the 244,891 deaths on the Western Front between June and December 1944 claimed by Overmans, it would imply about 655,000 German military fatalities fighting the Western Allies in 1944-45. That number is about 2.5 times higher (a difference of 392,000) than the 263,000 German fatalities on the Western Front in 1944/45 claimed by the US military . Have you ever seen a military source that underestimated military casualties inflicted on the enemy side? I haven't. On the contrary, military sources tend to overestimate, or deliberately exaggerate, the number of casualties inflicted on the enemy side. Especially if the casualties of their own side were high and they thus have a vested interest in pointing out that the enemy suffered more. Case in point, Patton's Third Army claimed to have killed, wounded, or captured 1,811,388 German soldiers, six times its strength in personnel. Included in that figure were 1,280,688 prisoners taken prisoner and 530,700 German soldiers allegedly killed or wounded fighting the Third Army . Fuller's review of Third Army records found that the number of prisoners was accurate (which is no surprise, as POWs can be precisely counted), but that the number of enemy killed or wounded was much lower than claimed (47,500 killed and 115,700 wounded for a total of 163,200 enemy bloody casualties between August 1, 1944 and May 9, 1945, vs. the 530,700 claimed by Third Army, whose claim thus exaggerated bloody casualties inflicted on the enemy by a factor of more than 3). If Marshall used the enemy casualty figures claimed by Third Army, which is not unlikely, his total of 263,000 German military fatalities in the 1944/45 campaign is much too high. Yet Overmans' study would imply that, instead of being too high as the above reasoning and sources suggest, or at the very best fairly accurate, Marshall's figure amounts to a mere 40 % of the actual total of German fatalities in fighting the Western Allies. This is extremely improbable, to say the least.
 * 2. Allied casualties mentioned on the page Western Allied invasion of Germany were just (62,704 + 6,298 =) 69,002, thereof (15,009 + 1,482 =) 16,491 killed. So the claim of 410,000 killed on the German side would imply a fantastic ratio of about 25 German soldiers killed for each Allied soldier killed. How on earth could the Germans have incurred such wildly disproportionate battle casualties in 1945? Did they blindly and senselessly send masses of untrained recruits in suicidal frontal attacks against Allied firepower? There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that. Did the Allies essentially wipe out their opponents with air power and artillery, with little commitment of their own ground forces? There's no evidence to suggest that either. There's also no evidence that Allied soldiers in 1945 were one-man-army Rambos who in each engagement inflicted vastly higher enemy casualties than they suffered themselves. What the evidence shows is that a) the Allies in 1945 advanced rather slowly and cautiously, for the understandable reason that they knew they had won and no one wanted to be the last one to be killed in the war, and b) the Germans were increasingly prone to offer but token resistance and surrender en masse, especially in the last months of the war (the note following the one I edited mentions that ~3.3 million German soldiers were captured from late March to early May 1945). Let's look at what the relation of casualties was in the major engagements that wholly or partially occurred in 1945 on the Western Front:
 * 2.1 Battle of the Bulge, 16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945: Allied casualties were 89,500 Americans (19,000 killed, 47,500 wounded,23,000 captured or missing) and 1,408 British (200 killed, 969 wounded, and 239 missing). German casualties were 67,459 (10,749 dead; 34,225 wounded; 22,487 captured) – 125,000. German casualties were either lower or not much higher than Allied casualties.
 * 2.2 Operation Nordwind, 31 December 1944 – 25 January 1945: 29,000 US and 2,000 French versus 23,000 German casualties. German casualties were lower than Allied casualties.
 * 2.3 Operation Blackcock, 14 January 1945 – 27 January 1945: 1,152 Allied vs. ~ 2,000 German casualties. Ratio of German KIA+DOW+WIA vs. Allied KIA+DOW+WIA: about 1.74:1.
 * 2.4 Operation Veritable, 8 February–11 March 1945: 15,634 Allied casualties, ~44,239 German casualties (thereof 22,239 POWs and about 22,000 KIA+DOW+WIA). Ratio of German KIA+DOW+WIA vs. Allied KIA+DOW+WIA: about 1.41:1.
 * 2.5 Operation Grenade, starting 9 February 1945: 7,300 casualties of US Ninth Army, which "captured 29,739 prisoners during the operation, and estimated to have inflicted 16,000 other casualties on the German army". Assuming that the latter estimate is not as exaggerated as the Third Army claim mentioned in item 1, this would mean a casualty ratio (only KIA+DOW+WIA, not including POWs) of about 2.2:1 in favor of the Allies.
 * 2.6 Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine, 25 August 1944 – 7 March 1945: about 279,600 Allied casualties, thereof 247,234 US from 15 September 1944 – 21 March 1945 (50,410 dead, 172,450 wounded, 24,374 captured or missing) and 32,366 UK (thereof, assuming same distribution as US casualties, 6,599 dead, 22,576 wounded and 3,191 captured or missing). Total Allied killed: 57,009. German casualties: about 400,000, thereof about 40,000 dead, 80,000 wounded and 280,000 captured. Total German casualties including POWs were higher than Allied casualties, but casualties in KIA+DOW+WIA were lower.
 * 2.7 Ruhr Pocket, March 7 to April 21, 1945: U.S.: 4,131 casualties (928 killed, 3,314 wounded). Germany: ~400,000 casualties, thereof 317,000-325,000 captured, which would leave 75,000-83,000 KIA+DOW/WIA, an improbably high figure as the Germans didn't put up much of a fight in the Ruhr Pocket. More realistic figures are given on the German Wikipedia page "Ruhrkessel" : about 10,000 dead including civilians on the German side, about 1,500 dead on the US side. Even assuming that 90 % of the German dead were soldiers, the ratio of deaths between the German and the Allied side in the Ruhr Pocket would be 6:1, making this the only one of the major engagements wholly or partially taking place in 1945 in which the number of German deaths significantly exceeded the number of Allied deaths. And even in the Ruhr pocket the ratio was way below the 25:1 ratio that the casualties of both sides stated on the page Western Allied invasion of Germany would imply.
 * So here's another reason why it's utterly unreasonable to assume that the German armed forces had 410,000 fatalities fighting the Western Allies in 1945. The fantastic disproportion of German vs. Allied KIA that this figure suggests, besides being rather improbable at first glance already, is radically at odds with the casualty figures for the major engagements that wholly or partially took place in 1945.
 * 3. Let's now calculate and add up the maximum number of German military fatalities in the major engagement mentioned under item 2 above:
 * 3.1 Battle of the Bulge: applying Vogel's breakdown (10,749 dead; 34,225 wounded; 22,487 captured) to the 125,000 casualties estimated by Cirillo and Astor yields 19,917 dead, 63,416 wounded and 41,667 captured. Of the 83,333 KIA+DOW+WIA, 23.9 % would be KIA+DOW. Applying the ratio of KIA+DOW vs. WIA according to the page Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine, i.e. one-third vs. two-thirds, we would have 27,778 KIA+DOW vs. 55,555 WIA. Though I consider this one-third vs. two-thirds ratio improbable, I'll apply it in the following as the purpose of this exercise is to establish the maximum number of German military fatalities in the major engagements that wholly or partially occurred in 1945 on the Western Front.
 * 3.2 Operation Nordwind: assuming that the figure of 23,000 German casualties refers only to KIA+DOW+WIA, not including POWs, applying the above one-third vs. two-thirds relation yields 7,667 dead.
 * 3.3 Operation Blackcock: assuming that the figure of about 2,000 German casualties refers only to KIA+DOW+WIA, not including POWs, applying the above relation of one-third vs. two-thirds yields 667 dead.
 * 3.4 Operation Veritable: one-third of about 22,000 German casualties not including POWs would mean 7,333 dead.
 * 3.5 Operation Grenade: one-third of about 16,000 German casualties not including POWs would mean 5,333 dead.
 * 3.6 Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine: about 40,000 dead according to that page.
 * 3.7 Ruhr Pocket, "Ruhrkessel" : a maximum of 9,000 German military dead, see item 2.7 above.
 * 3.8 Sum of 3.1 to 3.7: (27,778+7,667+667+7,333+5,333+40,000+9,000 =) 97,778 as the maximum number of German military fatalities in the major engagements that wholly or partially occurred in 1945 on the Western Front.
 * This sum total, which includes a sizable number of deaths in 1944, is completely incompatible with the assumption that 410,000 German military fatalities occurred on the Western Front in 1945 alone. Even if all 97,778 deaths in the major engagements had occurred in 1945, it would imply that only 23.85% of those 410,000 alleged deaths occurred in the major engagements whereas 76.15% (312,222 deaths) occurred in minor engagements of the period. This is extremely improbable and completely at odds with the evidence, to put it in the most polite terms.
 * 4. Conclusion: in stating that 410,000 German military fatalities (vs. only 16,491 Allied fatalities) occurred in the Western Allied invasion of Germany, Wikipedia is providing information that is obviously and demonstrably false.
 * I don't think this is the purpose of Wikipedia.
 * I understand the rule against including original research in a Wikipedia article.
 * But I'm sure there is also a rule against including obviously false information in a Wikipedia article, even if that false information comes from a study by a renowned military historian sponsored by the German Ministry of Defense.
 * Overmans may be considered an authority on the subject, but please bear in mind what Carl Sagan said about arguments from authority:

"'Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.'"
 * Studies based on statistical samples, like that of Overmans, carry the risk of yielding results that are wildly unrealistic, which is why the results of such studies should always be subjected to a reality check, to see whether they are plausible and compatible with the available evidence. Overmans obviously failed to do that.
 * If you read German you may be interested in the review of Overmans' book by "Hobbyhistorian" on the Amazon page https://www.amazon.de/Deutsche-milit%C3%A4rische-Verluste-Weltkrieg-Milit%C3%A4rgeschichte/dp/3486200283. It sums up what I just wrote and contains pertinent further arguments against Overmans' methodology and results. In case you don’t read German, the key statement in that review translates as follows:

"'Thereafter O. estimates that of the 1,230,045 deaths (only Eastern and Western Front, without Italy, without deaths in captivity etc.) about two thirds occurred on the Eastern Front (p.265). This would mean, however, that about 400,000 soldiers were killed in the West alone – a blatantly high number not confirmed even remotely by any other source (for the Ardennes offensive one must assume a maximum of 20,000, for the Ruhr Pocket 10,000 deaths). In total the number of deaths on the Western Front in 1945 was probably less than 100,000.'"
 * You may also be interested in the critique of Overmans' work written by Swedish historian Niklas Zetterling, which you will find under https://web.archive.org/web/20060219111518/http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/overmans.pdf.

I hope the above will persuade you to at least replace the information about German casualties on the page Western Allied invasion of Germany by "unknown". That would be the most accurate information Wikipedia can provide in this respect. Best regards,--Cortagravatas (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC), last edit--Cortagravatas (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You've obviously put a lot of thought into this, but I'm sorry, this just isn't what an Encyclopedia is for. That's why the No original research rule exists. An Encyclopedia is supposed to be a comprehensive list of sources, not original research on its own. As an academic study endorsed by the German Ministry of Defense, Overmans' work fits just about every criteria for being a reliable source.
 * But even ignoring that, there are many problems with your logic. The most basic being that 263,000 dead is the most accurate figure available and there's a 0% chance of it being underestimated. In fact, looking at other numbers on the same document gives us every reason to believe that it is. The same page lists 201,367 deaths for the US military in the whole war, while we know that US military deaths were twice that. A similar thing applies to the Japanese numbers. The author estimates on page 202 that Japanese military deaths were 1,219,000... but we know from Japan's own medical records published by the Ministry of Health and Warfare that the true number was 2,121,000. This indicates that either they're outright underestimating by a factor of x2 for all countries involved, or they're using a selective method of counting they're using is one that underestimates deaths by about x2 even when the true numbers are known for a fact (while Overmans counts overall deaths from all causes). In any case that would be pretty consistent with Overmans' 655,000 estimate for deaths on the Western Front 1944-1945, as that's around twice the 263,000 number.
 * One last note. It's 410,000 dead for the year (including deaths in POW camps after the war and presumably deaths by bombing; as noted, Overmans estimates ~80,000 German soldiers died in Western POW camps), not in the Western Allied invasion of Germany specifically. As noted in a (rather long) conversation further up on my talk page, if you look at the month by month losses by cause, and subtract soldiers who died as POWs or in other theaters, 554,446 German soldiers were killed in action in the three months of March, April, and May (284,442 + 281,848 + 94,528 = 660,818, 660,818 - 106,372 = 554,446). Assigning 1/3 of those deaths to the Western Front means 185,000 died in the invasion. Regards. --Nihlus1 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply.
 * Your second paragraph, in which you claim that there are problems with my logic, addresses but one of my three arguments, namely the first one whereby an estimate of enemy casualties by the US military is likely to be on the high rather than on the low side. The fact that Marshall underestimated the casualties of his own side is no argument that would invalidate my argument, as underestimating their own casualties is what belligerents tend to do. The fact that Japanese records later revealed Japan's casualties to be higher than estimated by Marshall (who referred to "Japanese losses in the Eastern battlefronts, including China, since Pearl Harbor", i.e. not including Japanese losses against China and the USSR between 1937 and 7 December 1941) is also no valid counter-argument in this context, as Overmans' estimate is not a figure based on German records. Those records, mentioned on the page German casualties in World War II, point to German military fatalities significantly lower than those estimated by Overmans, who claims that those records are incomplete. Overmans's figures are mere extrapolations from a statistical sample, which may be wildly off the mark as all extrapolations from statistical samples can be. Examples:
 * I) the USSBS, Morale Division's 1947 study "The Effects of Strategic Bombing on Japanese Morale" estimated about 900,000 Japanese civilians killed by US bombing, which is more than twice the highest estimate borne out by Japanese records. On the page Air raids on Japan it is mentioned that "the USSBS' investigators regarded the work of their statistical teams as unsatisfactory, and the researchers were unable to calculate the error rate of this estimate".
 * II) the Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties, which have been subject to the pertinent criticism mentioned on the cited page.
 * That's why Overmans should have checked whether the results of his extrapolations are compatible with what becomes apparent from the available evidence, which is something he failed to do.
 * My arguments numbered 2 and 3 you ignored completely. I pointed out that the 410,000 figure, which would imply a fantastic ratio of 25:1 between German and Allied military fatalities that is not borne out by any evidence, is at odds with a) the ratio of German vs. Allied casualties in the 7 major engagements wholly or partially occurring in 1945, and b) the maximum death toll on the German side in the 7 major engagements wholly or partially occurring in 1945. It beggars reason that the overall ratio of military fatalities in 1945 should have been 25:1 in favor of the Allies, when in the 7 major engagements I listed German fatalities were either lower or not that much higher than those of the Allies. It is equally implausible (even assuming that all the listed major engagements wholly occurred in 1945, which is not the case as a significant part of at least two of them occurred in 1944) that the major engagements should have accounted for only 23.85% of those 410,000 alleged deaths whereas 76.15% (312,222 deaths) occurred in minor engagements of the period. So if there are any problems with logic, they are on the side of who entertains either of these absurd propositions.
 * As to Overmans' figure for the 1945 "Final Battles" including deaths in captivity, that's not my reading of Overmans' book. It's also not the reading of the reviewer on https://www.amazon.de/Deutsche-milit%C3%A4rische-Verluste-Weltkrieg-Milit%C3%A4rgeschichte/dp/3486200283, whose key statement I translated, and who also cites Overmans' claim, on pp. 275, 279 and 283 of his book, that during the "Final Battles" of 1945 German military deaths were about 300,000 per month and 10,000 per day. It's neither the reading you see reproduced on the page German casualties in World War II, where you find the following list of Overmans' figures "By Front":
 * Eastern Front until 12/31/44: 2,742,909
 * Western Front until 12/31/44: 339,957
 * Final Battles in Germany (East & West fronts Jan.-May, 1945): 1,230,045
 * Other (Germany,Naval, Poland etc.): 245,561
 * Italy (until the surrender in 1945): 150,660
 * The Balkans (until Oct. 1944): 103,693
 * Northern Europe (Scandinavia without Finland): 30,165
 * Africa: 16,066
 * Prisoners of War: 459,475
 * Total: 5,318,531
 * The highlighted figure, on which the estimate of one third = ca. 410,000 for the Western Front is based, clearly does not include deaths in captivity, and it neither includes any theater other than the Eastern Front against the Red Army and the Western Front (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Germany and Austria) against the Western Allies.
 * As to Overmans' study being an "academic study endorsed by the German Ministry of Defense" and thus fitting about "every criteria for being a reliable source", I'm afraid that you are indulging in the argument from authority fallacy mentioned by Carl Sagan, who I quoted. However high an authority may have "endorsed" Sagan's study, this is no guarantee against the study being deeply flawed in many respects. And if you invoke a German governmental authority, you should also bear in mind that, as mentioned on the page German casualties in World War II, the German government still maintains that its records list 4.3 million dead and missing German military personnel from World War II, which is about 1 million below Overmans' total figure of German military fatalities.
 * As to an encyclopedia being "supposed to be a comprehensive list of sources, not original research on its own", I agree with that, but I don't think this precludes an encyclopedia's being critical of the sources it refers to, especially when an uncritical reference to these sources leads to the absurd claims under discussion, and thus to the encyclopedia's not fulfilling its essential purpose, which is that of providing information that is as accurate and complete as possible.
 * As concerns German military fatalities in the Western Allied invasion of Germany, once again, the most accurate information that Wikipedia can provide to its readers is that the number of these fatalities is unknown. There is no source currently available that contains a reliable accounting of the number of German soldiers killed fighting the Western Allies in 1945. Overmans' study is so obviously flawed in this respect that it doesn't qualify as a reliable source, regardless of whoever endorses it.
 * Now, let me make a suggestion on how our disagreement can be solved by editing the page Western Allied invasion of Germany in such a manner that it neither contains original research nor misleads its readers, but offers them the available sources and allows them to draw their own conclusions:
 * 1. The expression "410,000 killed" is replaced by "unknown killed and wounded".
 * 2. The related footnote is worded as follows:
 * ''"Rüdiger Overmans (Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Oldenbourg 2000, pp.265-272) estimates that the German armed forces suffered about 1,230,000 deaths in the "Final Battles" from January to May 1945 and that about 2/3 of these deaths occurred on the Eastern Front. This would leave 410,000 deaths attributable to the Western Allied invasion in 1945, a figure considerably higher than the 263,000 German military fatalities on the Western Front reported by US General George Marshall for the period from July 1, 1943, to June 30, 1945 (George C Marshall, Biennial reports of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the Secretary of War : 1 July 1939-30 June 1945. Washington, DC : Center of Military History, 1996. Page 202). Regarding differences between Overmans' estimates and figures from German and other records, see German casualties in World War II."

''
 * I hope we can agree on this solution.
 * Best regards,--Cortagravatas (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC). Last edit --Cortagravatas (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you missed the point of my objection. The fact that Marshall underestimated the casualties of his own side is no argument that would invalidate my argument, as underestimating their own casualties is what belligerents tend to do would only be a valid rebuttal if the official figures of about 407,000 dead weren't maintained by the US government since nearly immediately after the war and weren't publicly available, when in fact both of those things are true. Meaning Marshall must have been using a selective method of counting that didn't include total dead, for all countries.
 * Similarly for Japan. Excluding deaths in the China Theater prior to Dec. 7 1941 won't change the fact that the estimates he gives, as revealed by Japanese records, are entirely too low. Those figures could be excluding all deaths in the China Theater in total and it would still be a drastic underestimation. This pretty much entirely eradicates your argument that the true German losses must be lower than what Marshall has listed, and can in no way be higher. The point of that objection was that the available evidence (which says that, in the face of more or less indisputable casualty numbers, the cited document underestimates them by about x2) points towards German fatalities far higher than 263,000, which is consistent with Overmans' estimate.
 * I also think you misread what I said. The 1.23 million doesn't include deaths in captivity, but it does include deaths for the entire year and Overmans breaks them down by month (I brought up deaths in captivity listed separately to subtract them to get 1.23 million). if you actually tally by month, as noted further up on this page, the German fatalities for the three months of March, April, and May (which our page says is the duration of the operation covered by the page Western Allied invasion of Germany) would be 554,446- which is 185,000 for the West given his 1/3 estimate. Not 410,000 which would be the whole year.
 * But in the interest of compromise, sure. I see your point and that seems fine for the specific page Western Allied invasion of Germany, just as long as there's not an attempt to put forward Marshall's number as the end-all figure in light of the evidence that it's an underestimation (if we're applying the same standard to Overmans' 1945 estimate likely being an overestimation). Also perhaps note the month by month breakdown would leave 185,000 rather than 410,000 deaths attributable for the operation as defined by the page (March to May rather than January to May).--Nihlus1 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, which I will comment below.
 * ''«I'm afraid you missed the point of my objection. The fact that Marshall underestimated the casualties of his own side is no argument that would invalidate my argument, as underestimating their own casualties is what belligerents tend to do would only be a valid rebuttal if the official figures of about 407,000 dead weren't maintained by the US government since nearly immediately after the war and weren't publicly available, when in fact both of those things are true. Meaning Marshall must have been using a selective method of counting that didn't include total dead, for all countries.»

''
 * Marshall only counted battle casualties, and in this respect his estimate is to be compared not with the 407,316 military deaths in battle and from other causes, according to the Congressional Research Service Report about "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics" (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf), but with the 291,557 battle deaths in World War II mentioned in that report. I'm not aware of either figure having been stated by the US government at the same time as Marshall's report (in fact I remember having seen Marshall’s figure of battle deaths stated in the 1966 "American Heritage Picture History of World War II"). Could you please point out the US government source that stated the higher figure "nearly immediately after the war"? I don’t want to conclude that Marshall used a "selective method of counting" that didn’t include total (battle) deaths, without having ruled out the hypothesis that at the time of Marshall’s report a complete count of US combat casualties was simply not yet available.
 * «Similarly for Japan. Excluding deaths in the China Theater prior to Dec. 7 1941 won't change the fact that the estimates he gives, as revealed by Japanese records, are entirely too low. Those figures could be excluding all deaths in the China Theater in total and it would still be a drastic underestimation. This pretty much entirely eradicates your argument that the true German losses must be lower than what Marshall has listed, and can in no way be higher. The point of that objection was that the available evidence (which says that, in the face of more or less indisputable casualty numbers, the cited document underestimates them by about x2) points towards German fatalities far higher than 263,000, which is consistent with Overmans' estimate.»
 * You may argue that Marshall's figure of German deaths alone is not an argument against the accuracy of Overmans' much higher estimate (for only about half the period covered by Marshall's figure), but that wasn't my only argument – I added another two, which you have not addressed so far. It's also fallacious to conclude that, because Marshall's figure for Japanese deaths turned out to be an underestimate in light of Japanese records, his figure for German dead must also be an underestimate, moreover by the same factor. The latter doesn't logically follow from the former, while on the other hand the figures for the major engagements mentioned in my arguments numbered 2 and 3 suggest that Marshall’s figure for Germany was not as far away from actual German military fatalities as his figure for Japan was from Japan's military fatalities.
 * The OKW figures published by Percy Schramm, cited on the page German casualties in World War II, mention 107,042 dead and 409,715 "missing and POW" for the period from Sept 1, 1939 to Jan 31, 1945. Under the realistic assumption that the overwhelming majority of the "missing and POW" were POWs (on the Western Front German troops were more prone to surrendering when beaten than on the Eastern Front, where they would fight on even in hopeless situations for fear of the Red Army), the OKW's figures are an indication against the accuracy of Overmans claim that there were 244,891 military fatalities on the Western Front between June and December 1944. And if Overmans' figure for that period is too high, the same may apply for his "Final Battles" figure. According to Müller-Hillebrand's OKW figures, cited on the same page, the Wehrmacht on all fronts lost 1,965,324 dead and 1,858,404 missing and POWs in the period of Sept 1, 1939- Dec 31,1944, and about 265,000 dead and 1,012,000 missing and POW in the period from Jan 1, 1945 - April 30, 1945. Of course you may argue, as you (and I) do regarding Marshall's US casualty figures, that these are underestimates, and you would probably be right. But are they underestimates to the extent claimed by Overmans? Postwar figures independent of military interests, namely the West German government's 1960 demographic estimate whereby Wehrmacht military fatalities amounted to 4,440,000, and the files of the Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), which as of 2005 listed 4.3 German million military deaths (3.1 million confirmed dead and 1.2 million missing) in World War II, suggest otherwise. Do you seriously believe that the WASt, which has collected data on 18 million German servicemen since the end of World War II (including the many search requests from relatives about servicemen reported missing, mostly on the Eastern Front) undercounted German military deaths by more than 1 million, as claimed by Overmans? I consider that rather improbable.
 * In any case, you cannot argue (as you may regarding Japanese deaths) that Marshall's figure of German deaths must be an underestimate in light of what becomes apparent from German records. All German records rather tend to confirm Marshall's figure, or even suggest that it is too high (so, by the way, does the difference between US Third Army claims of German dead and wounded and the much lower figure established by Fuller on the basis of Third Army records, which I mentioned in my argument number 1 and you also did not address). The only source suggesting that Marshall's figure is too low is a demonstrably flawed extrapolation from a statistical sample.
 * As a further argument showing that Overmans' extrapolations are flawed at least as concerns the "Final Battles", please consider the following: in the entire western campaign from 6 June 1944 to 9 May 1945, the Allies had 766,294 total casualties including ~196,000 killed, according to the page Western Front (World War II). Of these, if the page Western Allied invasion of Germany is to be believed, a mere 69,002, including 16,491 killed, occurred in 1945, which would mean that 179,509 deaths occurred in 1944. Assuming that Overmans' figure of 244,891 military fatalities on the Western Front between June and December 1944 is correct, this would mean a fatality ratio of about 1.36:1 in favor of the Allies between June and December 1944 – high but not implausible considering the Allies' superiority in material and especially their virtually unchallenged domain of the skies. In 1945, if the figures on the page Western Allied invasion of Germany (410,000 German dead vs. 16,491 on the Allied side) are to be believed, the kill ratio would all of a sudden have jumped from 1:36:1 to a fantastic 15:1. There's no plausible explanation let alone any evidence for such incredible leap in the ratio of military fatalities, which is further proof that the figure of 410,000 German military dead on the Western Front in 1945 is utter nonsense.
 * Incidentally, Overmans didn't reveal how he arrived at his two-thirds vs. one-third division of deaths in the 1945 "Final Battles" between Eastern and Western fronts, unless I missed something. I thought he might have applied the relation according to his figures for the months June to December 1944, but that would be 883,130 on the Eastern Front vs. 244,891 on the Western Front, a relation of 78.29% in the East vs. 21.71% in the West. If Overmans had applied that ratio to his "Final Battles" figure of 1,230,045, the distribution (963,005 deaths in the East, 267,040 in the West) would be more in line with evidence about the comparative scale, intensity and ferocity of fighting on either front, though the figure for the West would still be glaringly high and at odds with the evidence. Instead Overmans not only claimed too high a death toll for the "Final Battles", but also seems to have plucked a rather improbable split of that death toll out of thin air.
 * «I also think you misread what I said. The 1.23 million doesn't include deaths in captivity, but it does include deaths for the entire year and Overmans breaks them down by month (I brought up deaths in captivity listed separately to subtract them to get 1.23 million). if you actually tally by month, as noted further up on this page, the German fatalities for the three months of March, April, and May (which our page says is the duration of the operation covered by the page Western Allied invasion of Germany) would be 554,446- which is 185,000 for the West given his 1/3 estimate. Not 410,000 which would be the whole year.»
 * If the 1.23 million deaths in the "Final Battles" are for the whole year 1945 and do not include deaths in captivity, what is supposed to have caused deaths outside captivity during the about 7 months after 9 May 1945? Do you understand Overmans' argument in the sense that a majority of those 1.23 million deaths were deaths from battle wounds after the end of the war? That would be a rather absurd assumption (and, needless to say, one that is not borne out by any evidence).
 * Also, if the 1.23 million deaths in the "Final Battles" are for the whole year 1945, why did Overmans baldly state, as he did on pp. 275, 279 and 283 of his book, that during the "Final Battles" of 1945 German military deaths were about 300,000 per month and 10,000 per day?
 * « But in the interest of compromise, sure. I see your point and that seems fine for the specific page Western Allied invasion of Germany, just as long as there's not an attempt to put forward Marshall's number as the end-all figure in light of the evidence that it's an underestimation (if we're applying the same standard to Overmans' 1945 estimate likely being an overestimation). Also perhaps note the month by month breakdown would leave 185,000 rather than 410,000 deaths attributable for the operation as defined by the page (March to May rather than January to May).--»
 * Your 185,000 figure is speculative and doesn’t seem to be based on sound reasoning (on the part of Overmans, if your reading is correct).
 * However, I am glad that we reached a compromise, and shall therefore, with your assumed permission (as I won’t be trying to "put forward Marshall's number as the end-all figure", despite there being no reason to assume that it's an underestimate like his figure for Japanese deaths) edit the page as suggested in my previous reply, in the certainty that the quality of Wikipedia information will benefit from this edit.
 * Meanwhile, I suggest you consider whether the figures for Allied casualties on that page should be left as they are. The page mentions only US and Canadian casualties. What about the rest of the British Empire? And what about the French, who did much of the fighting in southern Germany in 1945? At least a statement that British and French casualties are unknown seems to be appropriate.
 * So much for now. Thank you for your understanding and for the interesting conversation.--Cortagravatas (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC). Edit--Cortagravatas (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing

Please, stop reverting sourced edits made by me or other editor. Use talk pages instead of reverting good faith edits. This warning comes after your disruptive bahaviour at the Battlebox of the Battle of the Somme. Mr.User200 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking to? It can't be me, as I've never written anything on the Battle of the Somme page.--Cortagravatas (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Gallipoli edit
G'day. Thanks for adding this material to the Gallipoli article. Could you please add the page number to the citation though? All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot what page it was on and the book in question is no longer in my possession. Very sorry about that. Hopefully someone else can add the page (and we can be satisfied with a "page needed" tag for now), because that book really is a good source of info. I assure you though, it's in there- here's someone else citing the same book and putting its info in a graph to prove I'm not just making it up, for the time being. Aaaaaand looking at that graph it seems that the 145,000 figure referenced in our article should have the 6.45% figure applied to it, rather than 2.84%. I'll fix that.--Nihlus1 (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I had for the book in my work library (which is usually quite comprehensive), but they don't hold it. Keith: is there any chance you can lay your hands on this work (The Medical War: British Military Medicine in the First World War)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sadly not but I gleaned a page number using Amazon look inside, perhaps it will work again? Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * PS quite a bit of the medical history is on Archives org.Keith-264 (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you gents for sorting this. Just to be clear I didn't have any issue with the inclusion of the material. I was just after a page number as that may be of assistance to some of our readers who might use the Wikipedia article to assist their own research etc. Anotherclown (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Erickson
Hello. I'm sure you mean well, but can you please stop citing Erickson in so many world war related articles? He is a very unreliable and politically-oriented source. For example, in this edit he claims the Sarikamish casualties are 40,000, but the Battle of Sarikamish shows that most historians agree they are over 100,000. I'd appreciate if you would undo this edit, especially because it talks about other campaign casualties than the Caucasus one. --Calasoc (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not, because I haven't seen any problems with Erickson's work. BTW, he doesn't claim casualties of 40,000 for Sarikamish, he simply states the fact that only 50,000 irrecoverable casualties were documented by the Ottomans: 23,000 killed, 10,000 deaths in the hospital, 7,000 prisoners, 10,000 wounded invalids. Not clear if that counts disease/freezing deaths; likely not. In any case the Ottomans had a confirmed 12,000 men at Erzurum and 42,000 in the vicinity (all from the Third Army, which started with 118,660) by the end of the Sarikamish offensive, so casualties couldn't have much exceeded 64,000. The other estimates all base their total off of one offhand guess from 1926 (by Commandant Larcher) without access to the Ottoman Archives (and state that the Ottomans suffered greater casualties than they had troops in the army at the time- 118,660 for the 3rd Army), and also include disease deaths. Finally, Larcher's "missing" estimate includes many stragglers who linked up with the main forces later. Erickson goes into detail on this on pages 59-61 of "Ordered to Die", --Nihlus1 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Archives are primary sources and thus not very reliable. Anyways, the only parts that definitely need to be removed are the Turkish source claiming Russians casualties "though are likely in the hundreds of thousands", which has no real research behind it and is probably POV, and "and Russian combat casualties in major engagements after Sarikamish rarely outnumbered Ottoman ones by more than two to one", which likewise is not only substance-less and unreliable but also not very clear. And what did Erickson actually say about the Persian Campaign result? His book doesn't use the term "stalemate" on pages 192 and 193. --Calasoc (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Military records are about as reliable as you can possibly get in terms of historical documents, hence why every page that can use them for casualties, does. Anyway, the statement of 'likely in the hundreds of thousands' was just an estimate on my part based on a separate book listing 50,000 losses for the Russians in the four months (with no major battles) of June-September 1916 alone (from Muratoff and Allen's "Caucasian Battlefields"), in the same page where it lists 300,000 Turkish losses from November 1915 to March 1917 (very likely 'irrecoverable losses' for both, as the page also says the Turks suffered 400,000 'losses' total in that period, which would leave 100,000 other 'losses' to be divvied up between the other campaigns; Galipoli alone had 251,000 Turkish casualties overall). You can go ahead and remove that if you really want to. Erickson doesn't specifically use the term 'stalemate' when describing Persia, but he notes that the Turks were not dislodged, captured the positions they were after, and held them until the armistice; in this editor's opinion, that makes 'stalemate' a more accurate term than 'Allied victory' (which had no citation for it).--Nihlus1 (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Citations in infoboxes
There's a discussion here about citations in infoboxes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Second Mongol invasion of Hungary
Thank you for your work. Maybe the First Mongol invasion of Hungary also deserves an own article. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I enjoyed finagling all the data I could find on that event- it's barely referenced in any English language source I can find.
 * Giving the first invasion its own page would be warranted. The First Mongol invasion of Poland has one. It would help remove bloat from the Battle of Mohi page, which spends a lot of its length dealing with the lead-up and aftermath.--Nihlus1 (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mongol invasion of Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rashid Al-Din ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fist Mongol invasion of Hungary


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Fist Mongol invasion of Hungary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Boleyn (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

First Mongol invasion
Thanks for creating the article First Mongol invasion of Hungary. I expanded the infobox with some military leaders, who were killed before Mohi by the Mongol invasion. I hope, you will expand the article. I suggest modern-scholarly articles about the invasion and issue of Mongol withdrawal: , , , , , --Norden1990 (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Mongolempiremodernborders.png
Thanks for uploading File:Mongolempiremodernborders.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 19:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Austro-Hungarian casualties in World War I. Thank you. Nihlus 18:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Defence of the Reich
G'day Nihlus1,

I appreciate any improvements to the article. Unfortunately, it seems that the figure of aircraft shootdown given by "Encyclopedia of World War II" is inaccurate and no footnotes are present for verification. However, Westermann wrote at p. 511: ''During 1944, the Luftwaffe's fighter arm died as a result of a number of heavy blows, while the flak defenses experienced the death of a thousand cuts. Despite the growing severity of the problems experienced by the ground-based air defenses, the flak defenses of the Reich and the occupied Western territories had accounted for the destruction of 6,385 Allied aircraft while inflicting damage to more than 27,000 additional aircraft throughout the course of the year.''(122)

Footnote (122:) ''Renz, Development of German Antiaircraft, 384-385, Kl 13.107-194, AFHRA; see also Webster and Frankland, Strategic Air Offensive, vol. IV, p. 433. The total number of aircraft damaged by flak includes totals from the Eighth Air Force and Fifteenth Air Force monthly flak reports as well as the damaged aircraft totals provided by the official R.A.F. history of the air war.''

Westermann also noted another interesting fact about the Flak, p. 524: ''A post-war Army Air Forces study concluded that 39.7 percent of the radial bombing error of American bombers occurred as a result of nerves, evasive action, and reduced efficiency due to flak. Additionally, the study attributed 21.7 percent of the radial error due to increased bombing altitudes to avoid flak. In other words, 61.4 percent of American radial bombing error could be directly attributed to the Luftwaffe's flak defenses.''

However, the figure by Westermann are also disputed, Nigel Askey (Operation Barbarossa Vol. IIA p. 668) stated that RAF and USAF aircraft loss and damage figures are notoriously unreliable: the author is yet to find a definitive and accurate work. In case of adding it, we should always present both sides of the argument. Regards, Dircovic (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey
Do you have access to this book?
 * Liptai, Ervin (1985), Military History of Hungary, Budapest: Zrínyi Katonai Kiadó?

It was used in the Battle of Mohi article before being removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not, I simply retained all previous mentions of it whenever I revised that page. No idea who added it originally.--Nihlus1 (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

19th Division and the Greco-Italian War
Hi! My point is that the 19th Division's ability to wage mobile warfare is irrelevant to the Albanian front. Greece lacked mechanization equipment either way, war or no war with Italy. Indeed, the bulk of the armoured component for the division were captured Italian tanks. As such, this is rather irrelevant, and even misleading, as it implies a causal relationship where none existed. The point on the huge materiel and manpower drain caused by the war with Italy is already established enough either way. Constantine  ✍  22:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes sense. The tidbit about them lacking mechanization period would probably be more fit for the Battle of Greece page, in terms of describing the Greek situation in general, rather than anything specifically related to the campaign in Albania. However I still do think that the tidbit about them being denuded of artillery pieces is relevant, as that was connected to the war in Albania/Epirus (or at least, that's what the cited book said).--Nihlus1 (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the latter. Constantine  ✍  22:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Acculturation
So, in the bad old days of BBS, newcomers would be encouraged to lurk moar to get a feel for the norms of the community, otherwise we suffer an eternal september. I can see that you're a good-faith contributor but you seem to be editing in ways that aren't really helpful. Please take a look every time you get reverted to understand why. I hope you continue contributing to our encyclopedia and figure out what the norms are here. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 22:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you AnnalesSchool?
Hello Nihlus1,

Sorry if this comes out of the blue, but are you AnnalesSchool? If you have no idea what I'm talking about, my apologies. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. I don't know who that is, either. Out of curiousity, who is it and what gave you that idea?--Nihlus1 (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Iranian fatalities in Syria
Nihlus1, a few new editors are trying to remove the 2,100 figure of Iranians killed in Syria that you added before to the Syria infobox and trying to replace it with Alfoneh's figure of those he was only able to document, ignoring the fact 2,100 is the official figure. You could possibly jump into the discussion here. EkoGraf (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Managed to find a compromise solution, both figures now presented. EkoGraf (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

=

Invitation
Hello Nihlus1,

I'd like to inform you about recent trend on the Eastern Front article. Your long steady addition to the article has been contested diff. You may want to participate in the current discussion. Thank you. Wildkatzen (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries
You must provide edit summaries for all but minor changes. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Korean War edits
I had to take a minute to thank you for your edits to the Korean War article back in September. The info about the communist insurgency prior to the war is quite rare to find. (And even harder to find detailed sources on.) Excellent job.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just sort of stumbled into it while reading more general texts on the war.--Nihlus1 (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nuclear shaped charge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Project Orion ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Nuclear_shaped_charge check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Nuclear_shaped_charge?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

With regards to Siege of Fort Zeelandia
I removed quotations because it is not good style to use mass quotations in a paragraph. Please use block quotations as seen elswhere in the article. As for why I deleted some of your content, part of it is because of conciseness, but I could also not find several claims in the reference material. For example: "The Dutch were unimpressed with his army's organization, despite its numbers" and "The quality of the Dutch guns." You also omitted content from the reference such as the initial bombardment, which I added, and you delete. Qiushufang (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Your edit to Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The Hispanic America Population at 1600
Hi Nihlus1,

Your last edit on Hispanic America population at 1600 is very, very misleading and contradictory with all demographic historiography and the few contemporary explicit sources we have. That misterious "Wilson" source that you half-included (which is the title specifically?), specially focusing at the citation you provided, seems a non-expert source by an author with very limited knowledge or interest in Hispanic America demography. The spaniards count is wrong and it's surpassed just by the estimated emigration for XVI century (200-250k), so not counting natural growth during more than 100 years just the immigrants that number seems too low, the mestizo, mulato or black count is extremely low too and the native american count (just 1.5 million!!) makes zero sense and it's surpassed just by the official encomienda tributary count in a couple regions, for example Mexico, Perú or Colombia. Most estimations, following Rosemblat conservative estimations or the "high counters" of the Berkeley school focus on 1550, 1570, 1620 or 1650. The estimations focusing at 1600 specifically are pretty rare. However all the estimations or primary sources for the previous or following decades suggest a population several times higher to that "Wilson" source (8 times higher in Rosemblat for 1650 e.g. or double for spanish population at 1615-20s according contemporary author Vazquez de Espinosa).

I'm going to add some basic sources in the article discussion page that I hope are enough for you to change such odd and anti-historiographic estimation --81.0.7.77 (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to American Revolutionary War, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jeremyb (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War
Hi ‎Nihlus1, long time no see. I saw your edit at the casualties article and just wanted to point out that although I agree with your addition, there was one editor (you can see the talk page and article edit history) who resisted me mentioning this in note form or in brackets in the table, so the information was not mentioned. You stating it in the paragraph outside the table might be a good compromise solution, but just wanted to warn you he might want to remove it. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)