User talk:Yura2404

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Yura2404. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

removing sourced content

I reverted your edit to Battle of Łódź (1914). It's not for you to say that a 1914 issue of The New York Times isn't a reliable source. Why? It's possible those numbers aren't really accurate but the newspaper qualifies as a reliable source and you have no evidence to discredit their claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I know that the New York Times a serious newspaper, but estimates of losses given the journalist based on reports from Petrograd. It is the capital of the Russian Empire. So you publish in Wikipedia figures published by the Russian army immediately after the battle. This is pure propaganda. The journalist clearly wrote at the article: All information on losses from the Russian army posts. Thus, biased estimates of losses: the losses of the German army were taken from Russian biased source during the war.Yura2404 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

First, you can't prove that based on what the source presents. Even if that were true, encyclopedia writers have no business attempting secondary analysis. In the absence of another source, a tertiary document (Wikipedia) has to rely on what reliable sources are available. Not that it matters, but that article needs more sources, not less. I'm not going to edit war over it, but I think we should stick to those numbers until we can get better numbers. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, see (Google Books) "The Complete Idiot's Guide to World War I" (year of publication 2001) by Alan D. Axelrod, Ph.D., Chapter 9 Duel of Doomed Empires, page 108, German losses 35 000 kia and wia, Russian losses 90 000 kia and wia. This book (author - Ph.D.) is without a doubt an absolutely reliable source compared to a newspaper article in 1914! And as you can see, the real casualty figures are quite different. So the message from Petrograd, which used a journalist in his article, were completely false. Yura2404 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have a better source, add it; maybe bring it up on the talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello Yura,

You deleted the following from the Battle of Smolensk with the comment "Delete soviet propaganda"
Russian sources: 200.000–250.000 casualties

That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia tries for a NPOV, and that usually involves listing the opinions of both sides as long as they are reliable sources. If you believe that Zolatarev is not a reliable source, then you should explain the reasons for that belief.

We do not want to end up with an unbalanced Wikipedia that lists the views of only one side. NPOV is an important goal of Wikipedia, and without it Wikipedia's reputation will suffer. Your edits to Brusilov Offensive have created a rather absurd article that says in the introduction "Brusilov Offensive of 1916 the worst crisis of World War I for Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente's greatest victory" yet lists Russian casualties as twice of Austria-Hungary and Germany. Numerous edits made by you to articles involving Russia seem to violate NPOV.

Best,

JS (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JS,

First, are you read the book: VA Zolotarev and al., Great Patriotic War 1941-1945? I read this book, i have this book in paper version, the figure of 200-250 thousand German causilites - without reference to the German documents. it's just a Soviet estimate without reliable confirmation. we have reliable German documents about German military losses.

Second, I removed the introduction "Brusilov Offensive of 1916 the worst crisis of World War I for Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente's greatest victory" by mistake. I just do not agree with the figures of losses.

all the best, Yura2404 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe that including only German sources and ignoring Soviet sources is NPOV? Also do you understand the absurdity of having "Brusilov Offensive of 1916 the worst crisis of World War I for Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente's greatest victory" and the casualties figures you have put in the Brusilov article? Depending upon the time period for which an event is assigned and the reliability of the source, you will get many different casualty figures. The goal is to give the reader the best possible NPOV view. Unfortunately your edits have all proceeded in one direction. JS (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I including figures only from German sources? this is a joke? in the article about the battle of Smolensk and offensive of Brusilov: Russian and Soviet losses - according to Soviet sources, the German - from German sources. It is right!Yura2404 (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is your edit to the Battle of Smolensk [[1]]. After your edits German casualties stand at 70K, and Soviet casualties are 451K. The result of this battle is described as "Soviet Victory". This again makes this article look absurd. The Soviets are victorious and conquer territory but have 6 times as much casualties? This makes this article sound like military propaganda rather than NPOV. You deleted V.A. Zolotarev and al. reference which had German casualties at 200K to 250K calling it "Soviet Propaganda". What is your proof that Zolotarev is not a reliable source? If the Soviets really suffered 6X casualties how did they push the Germans and their allies all the way back to Berlin?

Also what about the Brusilov Offensive? No one can seriously believe that the Russians broke through the Austro-Hungarian lines, overran large amounts of territories creating the "worst crisis of World War I for Austria-Hungary" and yet managed to suffer twice as much casualties!!! These biased edits are really detrimental to Wikipedia's quality. JS (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

JS, I moved our discussion in talk's page about battle of Smolensk 1943 and the Brusilov's offencive. My answers are there.Yura2404 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have asked others to take a look at your edits [[2]] Best, JS (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Mesoten

Здравствуйте! You wrote the article on the Battle of Mesoten, but noticed that no article existed for the town in which the battle occurred. Is it possible that the battle occured in the town Mežotne? Is there any chance you could give me access to a scan of the page you used that referred to this invormation?

Спасибо,  Ryan Vesey 18:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Ryan Vesey! I have this book in djvu format. What is your e-mail? Best WishesYura2404 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I sent you a Wikipedia email with my email. Ryan Vesey 16:55, 4 November 2014 (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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Yura2404. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)