User talk:Grafikm fr/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Grafikm fr/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Shanel 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, congratulations on your first wiki page ever. It looks great! ^_^--Shanel 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ^_^ grafikm_fr

Battle of Budapest

Thanks for your cleaning up of Battle of Budapest! Awesome work! (Hard to get all of your own mistakes when writing an article... :( ) grafikm_fr 08:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm a lousy proofreader of my own work. SO I appreciate it when folks help me out.Montco 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of Königsberg

From the context, I believe it's the WWII one that's actually being asked for; but an article on either would be very welcome! Kirill Lok s h in 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably; the renaming can wait until the other article is actually created, though. Kirill Lok s h in 16:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW Project

You voted for Demographics of Europe, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. --Avala 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delphi

So your an Anti-Delphi person huh?

Basically, my user page was once a kind of private joke to some of my friends reading the Wikipedia, since there was little to no chance for something else to find it... Now, come to think of it, it is a bit biased, so i'm gonna remove it... Sorry if it offended you ^_^ grafikm_fr 12:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually

I would suggest posting your concerns on the administrator's noticeboard. This has been going on with several articles involving those 2. I think raising awareness of the issue would be helpful. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) It's a good place to go if you want to report something like...2 users in a revert war over several articles. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dead-end pages

Thanks for your help here! However could I ask you to actually remove articles from the list once you have added links to them, not just ~~strike them out~~. There is some debate (see Wikipedia talk:Dead-end pages#Consistent Procedures for Removing Pages) on what if you don't fix a deadend article but propose it for deletion. However, there is clear consensus that articles that are really no longer deadends should be removed.

Also, please don't forget to add categories to articles! Otherwise they will appear on Special:Uncategorized pages at a later date - another of the cleanup lists.

Again, thanks for your help! Cje 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalingrad map details

That's a wonderful question, I should really keep better records of these things! From the files I can find with a quick search, it appears that I used Corel Painter for the vectors. I then moved over to Photoshop to add some parts, probably because Painter isn't very good with text.

Normally, I would use Illustrator for something like this. I must have been playing with Painter at the time because a new version had just been released. --iMb~Meow 09:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar!

Aw, shucks! Somebody noticed me - I must be losing my Gnome touch.

Seriously, thank you for the barnstar and the kind words. Cje 07:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Fuel

Not sure why this was marked as a hoax, a cursory search on Google (for me, anyhow) reveals over 90,500 hits for the energy drink, including an eBay auction as recent as 5 days ago. [1] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Battle of Königsberg, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 12:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it made it to the main page... w00t, I'm proud... ^_^ Grafikm_fr 13:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dnieper/Dnepr

Hi, the spelling in English should be Dnepr (for future reference. I have created a re-direct for the battle using that spelling, since I can't be bothered to fix all the links. :-) Great start for the article! Greetings from a fellow Parisian. Andreas 13:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you said, the article was requested quite some time ago under this spelling, so that's the explanation. What got me, too, was the fact that in Wiki it is also named Dnieper. Grafikm_fr 13:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Russia

Hello, Alexander. I see that you write nice articles on Soviet-related themes. Please don't forget to announce your new articles on the subject on Portal:Russia/New article announcements, so other Russia-interested wikipedians could check them. There is also Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board for other Russia-related discussions. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Military maps

Yeah, we know about it ;-) If you check on Commons, there's a huge number of maps we've copied from there. Kirill Lok s h in 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Contributions

Hey Grafikm, I just wanted to drop by and thank you for contributing to some of the AfDs that I have proposed. I also wanted to leave you a little tip as I noticed that you seem to be leaving an extremely simillar recommendation on each AfD (delete per nom). While I agree with your recommendations, sometimes the closing administrators will discount recommendations from editors who routinely vote the same way on anything, or who fail to back up their reasons well. So in the future, if you want your recommendations to have more weight, you might try mentioning some of the valid guidelines, doing some research, or just varying your reasoning a bit. If by any means you have any questions or need help with anything, please let me know. Thanks! --Hetar 20:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Ward

I have rewritten this article based on verifiable media sources. While realising that biographies of local councillors are problematic according to WP:BIO, there is a fair mount of verifiable material about this fellow. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easter greetings

Христос воскресе! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Battle of the Lower Dnieper, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

AndriyK

Check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK. It is time to draft a new case, though. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello check this out

Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, if you want to set this RfC a-going, you need "to certify the basis of this dispute" rather than to endorse the summary. It takes two to launch a RfC. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subst:

Hello. I see that you've been helping us fight vandalism. Keep up the good work! However, I just want to remind you to add subst: in front of the warning templates, so instead of, for example, {{test2a}}, you would put {{subst:test2a}}. By using subst:, it actually transcribes the warning right onto the page instead of only the tag. This way, should the template change, the warning would not. Also, the message would be visible when editing, and changes can be made to the message if necessary. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Again, thanks.—G.H e 22:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.—G.H e 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense?

What do you mean by nonsense? What did I do? ;_;

70.187.226.94 23:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of the Lower Dnieper

Oh damn, that went downhill pretty fast :-(

For what it's worth, though, it's not really a full-blown revert war yet, so it might be a little early to ask for protection (and if it comes to that, it would probably be best to ask directly at WP:RFPP, since I'm technically an involved party here). My suggestion would be to ask for help at the project's WWII task force; that might get enough fresh eyes on the article to hash out some sort of reasonable consensus.

But I think that, at this point, most people here are acting in good faith. Even if heqs is wrong on some factual points, he doesn't strike me as someone who's just there to disrupt things.

Is there supposed to be a Battle of the Upper Dnieper, by the way? Or is that known by a different name? Kirill Lok s h in 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency Reaches Over 60 Million

Please reconsider your vote for deletion of article re: Michele Shohatovity. This health care professional is well known and respected in Israel. If she does work for the Israel News Agency, then she is an author who has a reach of well over 5,000 people (according to Alexa the INA reaches up to 60 million readers) which qualifies her as a notable. Thank you Idf-barak 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense???

What the @#$% are you talking about?

Accidental revert

I think you may have accidentally reverted here? You don't strike me as the type that'd remove that semiprotection tag. Just wanted to inform you that I don't think you're a vandal or anything, and that I reverted your revert. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assessment of Milhist articles

We've got thousands of unassessed ones, so any help would be very welcome! Feel free to rate whatever you'd like; but if you're looking for a place to start, you might go with the old worklist, since we probably need to make sure we don't actually lose rating information in the transfer to talk-page tags. Kirill Lok s h in 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother updating the old worklist, incidentally; it's supposed to be retired now ;-) Kirill Lok s h in 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind the re-categorisation of 1st Ukrainian Front. According to the criteria it should be 'start' category (provides multiple subheadings where information can be added). Thanks for taking the time to categorise it! Andreas 18:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha

Aisha was involved in a battle, but you should put the battle in the milhist category, NOT HER. I've got to go to a meeting, but when I get back, I'm going to remove the category tags. There's been a mistake here. Zora 20:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of the Bulge

I'm guessing the star was accidentally removed at some point (as were the categories!); I've put it back. Kirill Lok s h in 20:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me

Congratulations! A well deserved one! Please stay around and keep up helping the Wikipedia. --Irpen 19:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Foreign FAs

You're definitely preaching to the choir here; I made much the same observation myself when we first put together the list of foreign FAs. ;-)

My suggestion would be to use them for additional material, but not necessarily to expect that a straight translation will produce a finished FA-worthy article here. While some of the smaller languages have highly questionable standards, the larger ones (German, French, etc.) should have at least halfway-decent articles to work from. Kirill Lok s h in 14:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project!

Heh, I hadn't realized you weren't on the list; would you like a boilerplate welcome, or do you already know all of that stuff? ;-) Kirill Lok s h in 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

С Праздником!

--Kuban Cossack 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

No prob

That's what the collaborative project is all about, providing the finest articles written in the best possible language at the highest efficiency possible. The Eastern Front is finally receiving the merit it deserves- keep up the good work. Ksenon 14:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhukov

Hello

Could you add your two cents to the discussion which is currently going on on the Talk:Georgy Zhukov (Deng 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

the trolling of one "kuban kazak"

I am not ordering any one to do any thing, I politely ask. I understand you might feel strongly about the topic and refuse to accept the fact that others see it very diffrently and I respect it. But please tell me, regardless of your personal opinion about capital punishment (I strongly oppose it for moral reasons): do you belive that treating the execution of a murderer or rapist sentenced to death by an american court diffrently then the execution of Russian peasant who uttered an anticommunist slogan (or simply was acussed of doing by his neighbour) is applying double standards?

Do you honestly belive it is appropriate to compare less 5000 people executed during the XX century in the USA with tens of millions murdered by the soviets (often by working them to death in slave labour camps).--217.25.31.2 19:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw a story for you, in the factory my maternal grandfather worked in during the war when a worker was sick one day and couldn't come, next day the soviets arrested him for sabotage (simply because they had a quota of german spies to catch) and nobody ever saw him again.

Russian maps

If I new where to find such contour maps, I'd be making maps for Wikipedia left and right myself :) Heck, I don't even know if one can buy them anymore. There are plenty of regular maps available, though, but they are a royal pain in the butt to process. Sorry for not being of much help here. If you find something, please let me know as well; I'll continue to keep my eyes open, too, and let you know if I find anything of interest.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Smolensk

Great job! Andreas 08:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour

Once again I kindly ask you to stop calling people names and your inflammatory remarks. You don't add credibility to your POV by calling everyone else nationalists, POV pushers or by suggesting they are idiots. Such behaviour is unwanted in wikipedia and you could even get blocked for that, which is not what I want - and certainly not what you want. //Halibu tt 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, who is talking about not calling people names. Halibutt, that's a wonderful advise! Why won't you start a reform of Wikipedia with yourself. I assume I don't need to point out on your calling other people names, do I? --Irpen 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, Irpen, my faithful shadow... I promised Alex not to call your actions by their name recently, don't make me reconsider. //Halibu tt 18:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt, I honestly don't care what you call me. You (or AndriyK or AlexPU) can only offend me once. After I make my judgement of how much your words are worth, I stop caring. And I talked to Grafikm before, that's why I have his page on my watchlist. I don't shadow you as I have better things to do with my time. You think too much of yourself assuming otherwise. --Irpen 19:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberate

Hey, your favorite nit-picker here :)
I'm tied up this weekend travelling back and forth from town a little more than expected, but promise to respond by Sunday night at the latest. I let Irpen know. Later! -tufkaa 02:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory day

The article has been trolled by Molobo in his trademark way. That is a huge amount of polonocentric stuff added to it with the reference used for it being as reliable as the political speech of the President of Poland. This fellow was blocked for most of the time while you were here but for those who know him there is nothing new and unless he gets reformed and/or permabanned, you will see much more of it. I asked another Polish editor who moderate this because if I do it, Molobo will likely simply wage an edit war. In any case, I am avoiding editing it now, as well as the paragraph on the reasons of the separate German surrender, because as you said at the article talk, we need to rewrite the info. As such, I am not going to restore the info on the Soviet contribution being the major from its getting weazelized because if this was not the reason of the event there is nothing to fight for. I will get to that when you (or someone else) corrects it. --Irpen 03:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Images

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo I had enough of people messing with our images. Help out --Kuban Cossack 12:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to my proposal, и слушай нам надо подумать, ведь по-мойму там дела были так, что т.к. вся печать была государственная, то авторы обязаны были подписать какое-то соглашение, что мол если они отдают свои работы в печать то все они отказватються от Авторских прав и т.д. (ну типа norightsreserved) потому что полный бред выходет, то чего этот Лупо несет полностью противоречет действительности. Наверно закон РФ там 93-го или 04-го года про которой он говорит просто как-бы принят защитить те работы которые до сих пор не были опубликованны. Но опять же нам надо связываться с профессианалами. --Kuban Cossack

13:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced images

You still need to give the original URL, although however that should be ammended since we can scan in the images... now that is a point to ponder. --Kuban Cossack 13:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet PD

"Either there exists a clearly defined law or policy forbidding (or authorizing) something"

There is neither, or at least we are all unaware of it. So which is a default? The default is that every work is copyrighted by its owner. There is a bunch of exceptions, and soviet pd would be one of them. Burden of proof lays upon you to provide abundant evidence to show it is really pd. Renata 17:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Grafkim: Fine, don't police anything. Wait till another Seigenthaler comes along and blows another humongous media campaing "Wikipedia is not only unreliable but also a copyvio." Renata 17:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renata, if you go on any Russian website you will find that all works published even after 1973 are displayed and not in a thousand years will anybody try to persecute anyone. Moreover the way Soviet mentality was that everything is common. So published works in the Soviet Union could have been used for any purpose. That is the way it is now in Russia. --Kuban Cossack

17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US there is a clause The defendent is assumed innocent until proven guilty in that case until wiki is actually accused by an external, ie, Russian author (which is less likely to happen than the moon falling from the sky). It is wrong to just have some vigilante make rules on images that he does not even use himself--Kuban Cossack

17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof? Besides "everyone does that?" Renata 17:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Second Battle of Smolensk, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contribution! ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

Can you take a look at the Stalin discussion page and add your 2 cents. (Deng 21:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Talk:Battle of Borota

Why did you remove the Chad WikiProject tag? KI 15:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

You supported Military history, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lok s h in 21:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

I find your message at WP:ANI confusing. Could you please restate to whose diffs on what you are referring to and to whom you address this: to myself or to KRYS. Thanks, --Irpen 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'm just here to thank you for helping to protect our userboxes. Cyde Weys is too tyrannical about the "junk". =3 Kitty the Random 23:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need for translator (fr to en)

Hello fellow Wikipedian. I'm looking for some help at Scanderbeg. I 've left a message at the project page but noone responded. If you can and if you are interested, please check this french book (it is in public domain) so that this article (and perhaps the many related articles) gets improved. Thanks! talk to +MATIA 06:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Image:Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg

Your help is needed here: commons:Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg -- 84.157.0.139 22:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. But, don't you know anyone else who could support us? -- 84.157.53.56 20:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of Smolensk (1943)

Yeah, I'd say the peer review has wrapped up at this point. I wouldn't bother with a general PR myself—my experiences there have been decidedly unproductive—but if you want to procrastinate with the FAC nom for another few weeks... ;-)

I think that the article is probably ready for FAC. (The Soviet image issue really isn't related to it specifically, so hopefully none of the image police will jump on it; but you never know.) Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would nominating it mean that I'm obligated to try and fix any problems people find? ;-)

If it really bothers you, I could nominate it (or we could even do a nomination in WPMILHIST's name?); but almost every FA that's been promoted in the past few months has been a self-nom of some sort, so it's become something of the usual procedure there. Kirill Lokshin 16:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Go for it! Kirill Lokshin 17:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work there. Andreas 09:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's still on the candidate page; so no, it looks like whoever added the star was mistaken. The final decision will be made by the featured article director, but he usually only does promotions once a week or so. Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting it to FA status. Very well done. Andreas 13:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Userboxes

Well, I usually spot them when they get added to the project page, since that pops up on my watchlist ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you...

For your extensive contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of World War II, and to the Military history WikiProject itself, I hereby bestow upon you the *Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award*. Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the amazing work! Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 23:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp

Just to keep you updated, I have split-off one of the article's lists and put another one into table form. Since your objection in the FAC appears to be based on their being too many lists, I hope you will review the article to see if you feel your objection still stands. Thanks! Staxringold 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I noticed that I deleted your comment by accident. Sorry for that. --Molobo 16:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blank maps

Not exactly blank, but sure as hell a lot less crowded than any other maps I've seen so far.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some nice ones, but copyright status is unknown, and there are too few.
Free, but of crappy quality.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 21:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Day (Eastern Europe)

Grafik,

I think the current edit war in Victory Day (Eastern Europe) is particularly non-constructive, and I'd like your help in ending it. There are certain facts that are verifiable because they are objective: Resource contribution, Casulties/mortalities, Structure losses, etc. However general statements such as "contributed most to the defeat of...." are so broad and ill defined that everone creates their own interpretation when reading. As such, such phrases will remain contentious and distract from improving the more importants parts of articles. On this argument I think that the statement should either be removed (as is not critical to the article) or adjusted to state something that is verifiable.

Since it is currently not referenced and contentious, I think the default policy would be simple removal, but since you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this topic, Im guessing you would probably be able to come up with a statement which is referenceable along with a reference. I think if you do that in goodfaith with careful wording, this can be but to rest.

Please help me end this edit war.

Andy 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for putting the effort that you did into that. Your latest edit is not only likely to end the edit war, but also adds a significant amount of important information and authority to the article. Very nice work ! : )

Andy 19:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Second Battle of Kharkov

As far as I can tell, all of the headings and such were cleaned up during the previous FAC. The article's major weakness is the sparsity of footnotes; this is particulary troubling in the "Conclusions" section, which is full of weasel-wording and subjective analysis that really needs to be cited to specific historians.

I look forward to seeing what you can do to the article! :-) Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. They're copyrighted, but with all rights released; that's a perfectly good tag for images. Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my take on it:

“

When examining the reasons for the catastrophic failure of the Kharkov operation, it is not difficult to see that it was organized very ineptly. One needs merely look at a map of the events. Indeed, how could the command staff of the south-western front risk advancing on Kharkov when doing so would expose the front's poorly equipped left flank to an enemy attack from the direction of Kramatorsk? Nor did the lack of strength and equipment available for the operation bode well for its success; but this was not the main problem.

The main reason for our defeat lies in the mistakes made by the Supreme Commander, who underestimated the serious danger concealed within the south-western sector and failed to take steps to concentrate any substantial strategic reserves in the southern part of the country. Stalin ignored sensible advice—to organize a strong defense in the south-western sector, so as to meet the enemy strikes with heavy fire and counterattacks by our forces—and permitted the command staff of the front to undertake an undersupplied operation while simultaneously planning offensives on nearly every front. This led to significant human and material reserves being uselessly wasted.

If the rear of the south-western sector had contained even a few reserve armies capable of action, this catastrophe would not have occurred.

”

Some subtle issues on which you likely have a more informed view:

"Военный совет" - is this being used as a general term for the command staff, or does it refer to a specific group with that name?
"юго-западное стратегическое направление" - I've translated this as "sector", since it really seems to be referring to something other than pure geography. Is this a safe word to use, or were there actual sectors in the breakdown of the fronts?

Any questions or comments on my translation generally would be quite welcome, of course! Kirill Lokshin 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psittacosaurus

Hello, I am one of several contributors to the Psittacosaurus article which is currently a featured article candidate. I have noticed quite a bit of activity on the FAC page on your part and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing the Psittacosaurus article. We feel it is quite good and the three reviewers who have examined it have supported the nomination. However, because only three reviwers voted, we were hoping to get some additional opinions on how to improve the article further so that it may become featured. I see that you have several projects of your own, but any time you could spare would be much appreciated. Thank you! Sheep81 02:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and of course your support. Here's hoping the WikiGods see fit to feature us! Thanks again. Sheep81 10:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Allow me...

Thanks a lot for the barnstar! And yes, I did notice! I suspect you're going to have a pile of FAs under your belt soon :-) Kirill Lokshin 10:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ru to En

I am searching for a translator who can translate the Russian version of the article Su-27 into English. The Russian version is a featured article, and I would like to improve the English version with information from the Russian version. Thanks, LWF 00:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Thank you for the information, even if you won't be able to do the translating. LWF 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test?

what do you mean by test in User talk:65.94.197.14? I fixed gibberish in the middle of a word. Please reply in User talk:65.94.197.14