User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive15

Manchuria

Extended content

"Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from the Soviet General Staff. it is the operation name. If you wish, unlike other Wikipedians, you can contact Mr. Glantz himself and ask the questions. --124.183.146.14 (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC) You seem to be contributing to the quality of the article and not just reverting, and looking at the naming of this article without any prejudices, so just to further inform you on the subject. Nick-D lies when he says there are no references for the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. Its just that he is not aware of any. Of course there are. I can find the references for the full name although even if you look at the bibliography used by Glantz in his original paper, you will see that even the Soviet Army was not particular to use the full name. (As an aside, I agree that "Accusing Nick-D of lying is counter-productive and it is confrontational." It's quite simple to use non-confrontational language, but achieve the same message. e.g. "Nick-D is ill-informed when he says there are no references." The former focuses on Nick-D; the latter on the subject of interest.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) "I can find the references for the full name" - That would be useful. Yes please. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) As a comment on my personal opinion: I prefer to use sources other than Glantz, and then look at Glantz to see what he says. "Everybody" tends to "only" read Glantz; he's a good source, but his is not the only POV, and I find that I don't get the whole picture when I read Glantz. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) My initial point in changing the name was that same standards used for naming articles about operations conducted by the Western Allies should be used for the operations conducted by the Red Army. You will also note that several sources call this a 'campaign', including Soviet sources, although by definition a campaign is a rather protracted undertaking, usually taking months to execute, so why? (answer below) How was the current name arrived at? I'm surprised you missed it because you said you had read the talk pages, including I'm sure the renaming 'consensus'. It was based on this: The current article title is lousy. I suggest renaming it to 'Soviet Invasion of Manchuria'. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I did try to point out that the 'Manchurian' in the Soviet name referred to the Soviet Manchuria (Northern Manchuria) because Soviet Union did not recognise the Japanese puppet state of Manchuria, and therefore could not have invaded it. This is aside from the logical POV that since they were IN Manchuria already (geographically) they could not very well be invading it, could they? Strangely, I think I understand. In my opinion, that's a good example of the sortcomings of "management by committee" ... Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) However, the most salient argument against naming the article anything with a 'war' in it remains, er...the article content! I do not understand why people argue over articles without actually reading them, or even looking at the table of contents! There are lots of answers to that observation. Probably the simplest is: "Because it suits their personal agenda(s)." I'm sure you've heard the statement: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story." Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

An article about a war, any war, includes sections

• 1 Background
• 2 Chronology (preceding diplomatic relationships)
• 3 Pre-war events (economic aspects of going to war and sustaining it)
• 4 Course of the war (deployment of forces)
• 5 Aftermath
• 6 Impact of the war

Extended content

Before you started adding content, the article was predominantly about the military operation from its August commencement date! All the rest was included in a summary and background sections, which are surely NOT what one would expect to see in an article on a war. Clearly therefore (as my logical reasoning suggests) the article is about the military operation. Strategic had to be included because this operation, like no other, was strategic in planning and execution. In one operation the Soviet Union intended to conduct the offensive simultaneously in China, Korea and Japan. Also it was to use airborne and amphibious forces to prosecute these plans. More importantly, and still not dealt with in the article, was the strategic relocation of forces from Europe to the Far East. In Soviet literature one of the arguments for calling the operation a campaign, is that in reality it begun secretly months earlier with the commencement of troop movements from Germany. Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) So, if editors want to have an article on the war between Soviet Union and Japan, fine, but let it be a fully fledged article devoted to the war in general. On the other hand, if they want to have an article on the massive operation that culminated this war, then there needs to be that article. In trying to mix both, as usual one gets neither. Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) That the people who formed the renaming "consensus" did not consider this to me suggested they didn't care, but just wanted to prove a point to me that they could do anything, and get me blocked for good measure. Since then not one of the individuals forming the consensus had added a single new reference, sentence or even a word to the article while preventing me from doing so also. The proof is in the diffs as the saying goes. You should know that this was the third in a series of the great Soviet operations article naming debates, on culmination of which I was prevented from editing and creating a great many articles on Soviet operations during the Second World War, which is where it stands now. (please reply here) Mrg3105 --121.218.129.105 (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for that. I enjoyed reading it. Most appreciated. I'll give it some thought before I reply. Cheers & thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC) IMO Mrg3105's comment on my talk page tacitly invited me to join this discussion, so that's what I did. Welcome! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Accusing Nick-D of lying is counter-productive and it is confrontational. Agreed. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Besides that I agree with most of what you wrote specially the distinction between "military operations" and "war". I live in Brazil so this is the best definition of Strategic Offensive Operation I found: Book: Colossus reborn: the Red Army at war : 1941-1943 Author: David M. Glantz page 82 ""a system of offensive operations unified by a single Stavka concept and conducted to achieve the military-political aims of a campaign"." So the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation is a system of offensive operations designed to achieve military-political goals. Such article should define this system and define its goals. IMO the conduction of the operation falls outside of the scope of such article. So the article Soviet invasion of Manchuria or Battle of Manchuria should inform that the Soviet plans and objectives are detailed in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation article. EconomistBR 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I'm a bit confused here. Yes, I agree that "Such article should define this system and define its goals.", but I'm not sure why you're saying the actual execution of the operation falls outside the scope. The word "Operation" is in the title - if the plan is not executed, then it's just a plan, not an operation. Also, as you say, it's a system of operations, not just a system of plans. So, I guess that means I disagree? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) With all due respect EconomistBR, I call 'em as I see 'em. Why? It doesn't achieve anything useful. It doesn't help you achieve what you want - in fact, it achieves the opposite. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I do retain my integrity. I am averse to "means justifying the ends" thinking So, I interpret your response as Q1. Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from? - A1. User:Mrg3105. - No supporting reference. Q2. Where does "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" come from? - A2. "Attrition". - No supporting reference. Q3. Where does "(Russian: Советско-японская война, lit. Soviet-Japanese War)" come from? - A3. ? (Not answered.) Q4. Why is what's stated in the article inconsistent and unreferenced? - A4. Because that's the way it happened. Do you you agree with that summary? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC) In brief: 1) Yes, 2) Lengthy discussion on the article's talk page 3) Not sure 4) Yep, and because it was subjected to a very tedious campaign of disruptive edits by Mrg Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC) To the first question of supporting evidence, the change was in the first instance effected after contact with the first author to give it any sort of complete account in English, Glantz, and who's two reports the original article was based. Therefore the original article was not about a war. No further supporting evidence was ever sought by Nick or anyone else! So that's a lie, since he could have just said "I don't know". By the way, Glantz at the time was not paid to study Soviet military history, but to work on doctrinal (i.e. military) applications, and that eventually became AirLand Battle introduced in the US Army in the early 1980s. "Strategy" was a very important part of that work, but the wider diplomatic and economic considerations of the war were only peripheral to his reports. i) Please note that the words you are quoting as Nick's are/were my words, not Nick's Not at all. To your question *Q1. Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from? - A1. User:Mrg3105. - No supporting reference. - Nick-D answered :In brief: 1) Yes, Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC) ii) I asked and answered: Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from? - A1. User:Mrg3105. You say "the change was ... effected". What/which "change" are you referring to? The change to Soviet invasion of Manchuria was after I had successfully renamed the article Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. You see, Buckshot and Eurocopter saw this as a precedent to me renaming/creating the other 72 Soviet strategic operation articles, and Buckshot06 expressed the opinion that the article names were too long and overly tedious to read. You will note that renaming this article excluded it from the Category:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, while all the articles in the category were stripped of the 'strategic'! You say " ... to give it any sort ... ". What/which "it" are you referring to? "the change was ... effected" - refers to the operation "Therefore the original article ... " - Agreed. I also think the current article isn't about the war, either. And I believe EconomistBR also thinks this - hence the latest proposal to have separate articles for the "war" and the "campaign". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, and how are you going to do that? The decision has been made, and to reverse it you would have to get each and every person that voted the last name change to admit they were wrong. The second question Nick answered with "Attrition", whatever that means (selection from various suggestions?). No, "Attrition" was my word. Like you, Nick didn't think much of it either, but he was more polite. He answered: "Lengthy discussion on the article's talk page" Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) However, that's also a lie. It was suggested by Raul654 and accepted based on GoogleBooks word count. In fact the discussion wasn't that lengthy because there was no discussion! It was a pole vote, plain and simple. I don't agree that it is "a lie". There was indeed "Lengthy discussion on the article's talk page" BEFORE "It was suggested by ... " Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) You are quite wrong on this, and I have EconomistBR to confirm this as well as this diff 04:14, 30 June 2008 Mrg3105 (talk | contribs) m (moved Operation August Storm to Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: as per talk and sources given there) Until this move EconomistBR was one of few people consistently participating in the discussion aside from Buckshot06, Nick-D appeared from nowhere on same day. The second 'discussion' begun on the 23:42, 30 June 2008 and if you read it, you will see only lame comebacks by Nick-D with no one else participating. Nicks only line of reasoning, and his alone was that "the operation under discussion is a part of the Soviet military history" - that's only one side of the conflict, which is also an important part of Japanese military history. The invasion of Manchuria led to the defeat of Japan's single largest field army and played a major role in the Japanese decision to surrender. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC) However no one actually brought any information to reflect the Japanese side of the story then or now, and how could they? It was not a Japanese offensive, so all they could call it is The defeat of the Kwantung Army. Besides this, the article, as I said before, was not about the war, and therefore influencing the Japanese decision to surrender, but the operation, and defeat of the largest Japanese Army before surrender. Renaming the article changed the subject of its content. But of course this is also inconsistent with other articles. To name one, in Operation Market Garden the entire article is written predominantly from the Allied point of view. Even though it has a ludicrous section titled German preparation, where as we know the senior German officers were taken completely by surprise, standing agape in their residences watching the massive airlift unfold before them. And yet no one has stepped in and said, this is about the operation and not what happened before it (vast majority of the above section content. Because in fact editorial review in Wikipedia is poor by academic standards, but the MH Project coordinators will not accept this, and continue to approve featured articles that are just poor. One such is Nick-Ds pride and joy, the Military history of Australia during World War II which fails to mention the major Allies, UK and USA! The (1945) was added later when I pointed out that there was an invasion by the Soviet forces of the quasi-independent Manchurian state in 1929. The British diplomatic records do refer to it as such. So, another lie, since he could have looked back on the poll vote he participated in. To question three, see question two answer. No one suggested comparison between the suggested article title and the "Japanese invasion of Manchuria" article. There is a "Sino-Soviet conflict (1929)" article about the November 1929 Soviet invasion following the Harbin incident. p.44 The making of a Chinese city: history and historiography in Harbin, Søren Clausen, Stig Thøgersen. Although known as a "little war" it is called a 'conflict' in Wikipedia, while the 1945 "conflict" is called an "invasion" which to me seems more than a little inconsistent. However, this is par for the course in Wikipedia Military History Project where terms are defined by voting on them rather than logic, accepted usage outside of Wikipedia and supporting evidence. Of course the 1929 conflict was an invasion because it was very limited, and economics rather military power based. This is quite different from a war even by Wikipedia's definition. Please note how the invasion is defined in Wikipedia. I simply insisted that where the offensive seeks to invade a large region, in this case three countries, it is strategic by definition. A similar argument I posed over the Operation Market Garden. This is not a trivial and pedantic demand, but defines the scope of the operations for the reader since most readers understand, thanks to use of the word in the media commentary on the financial world, that strategic means BIG. Fair enough. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) What Nick means in his answer to question four, is that my logical arguments and evidence were disrupting what he or Buckshot06 wanted to see; he answered nothing, and eventually had other editors just vote me out. I find Wikipedia's definition of 'disruptive' quite interesting, but in general it works best if you are an administrator or even better a project coordinator. When I look back on the 'discussion' and ask myself, who was disruptive, well, of course those that do not contribute themselves or prevent contribution by others to the improvement of the article. My intended contributions to a host of articles have been disrupted because what I add to the articles does not fit what coordinators of the project think they should be, so they disrupted my participation by baseless accusations, and eventually an imaginary charge of sockpuppetry! "If you can't out-argue them, just get rid of them" principle is well and alive in Wikipedia. So far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia is neck-deep in bureaucratic policy management and enforcement rather than article editing, and this creates the classic "don't rock the boat" syndrome most bureaucracies suffer eventually. Well, I don't think there's much I can do about that. It now seems to be in the realm of "fait accompli". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) You call this confrontation EconomistBR, but I call it truth. Truth can be confronting though. "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it." Unpleasant "truths" can be presented in a non-confronting manner, and in general, one is much less likely to achieve one's goals when using a confrontational approach. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, you keep saying that, but you have not been through the preceding rigged straw polls, and in any case by this stage it was academic how nice I was going to be to anyone. There was a decision made off-Wikipedia to do as Buckshot06 wanted because although he is utterly unfit to edit on the subject of the Soviet articles in the Second World War, he is very nice in his interaction with the powers-that-be in the Military History Project. But, I have read and written an essay on 1984 early in life. Having grown up to some degree in USSR where lying was the rule in various guises from official propaganda to daily interpersonal 'white lies', I have come to despise it throughout my life. I will not be nice to people and tell them they are "mistaken" where as in fact they are lying. There is a large and obvious difference between wilful lies and honest mistakes. Indeed it was a 'fait accmpli' even before the 'discussion' started, and I am not asking you to do anything for me. As I said before, Wikipedia is an organisation that is rotting, and as with fish, the rot starts in the head. Nick-D is one-removed from "Jimbo" now, so that tells me about his oversight, if he has any, on who and how manages the objective of this enterprise, which is to produce high quality articles. Participation should be about editing, and all other policies must be focused on the objective of editing high quality articles, not enforcement of behaviour modification policies of 'niceness'. I did not after all tell anyone to "fuck off" on first contact. I had in the past produced very many articles, nearly none a stub. I had contributed significantly to referencing articles, including those that had nothing to do with the Eastern Front, or even Soviet Union. When I say articles, I mean articles, from scratch or rescuing. I did not expect any 'thank you' for that, but when people started to try and stop me doing so, I was offended because Wikipedia screams online "come and contribute, everyone welcome", but when you get here, you get bureaucracy and networked behind-the-scenes schemeng and arcane politics I don't know what Nick does for a living, but I hope he is not paid for his assumptions. Mrg3105 --121.216.53.87 (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Hmmmm. Well, I may not be any wiser, but I am certainly much better informed! Thanks for that. Interesting. Very interesting. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject of the article

Whom do you refer to when you say that they offer a different picture to that of Glantz?

(I just want to clarify my use of "different" here. In these circumstances when I say "different", I mean "overlapping but also containing other information" rather that "completely different" or opposite or conflicting.)

At one level, you could say all authors offer a different picture. My comment was attempting to point out that, to me, Glantz's summaries often seem to "miss" things that add colour and depth to the picture. I'm not trying to infer that the information Glantz presents is inaccurate or "wrong", just that often there are bits of the picture missing, and when I see those bits elsewhere, it gives me greater depth of understanding.

I guess I'm saying that I don't like to restrict my information to just one source.

However, being specific, and refering to Soviet-Japanese War (1945)#Further reading and also the references, "different pictures" I enjoyed looking at were Butow, the Bart Whaley section in Despres, Slavinskii, Drea and Hayashi (Vol.13 of the special studies).

All the references I would offer to the full name are from Russian language sources.

Glantz, as a Russian Academy of Sciences fellow, now has unprecedented access to Russian and Soviet archives, and I think is the only one among specialists in the field to actually speak the language.

The Anglo-Australian who translated Slavinskii probably deserves an "honourable mention". (Geoffrey Jukes). I find Slavinskii's work very interesting. It's a shame he died "young" (In his 50s I think.)

Of course the Japanese side has to be reflected also, but I never had a chance to get there. I was going to work with other editors in Wikipedia working in the Japanese area, but that was never pursued. This would have been possible if the companion paper [1] was read by anyone other than me Mrg3105--58.165.187.31 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've read it, but as you've probably already determined, my interests tend to be in the strategic level - I'm not so interested in the tactical. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So how can I help improve the article? Mrg3105 --124.176.95.71 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a number of ideas, and I imagine EconomistBR might have some too. As a first step, perhaps you can comment on the ideas?

Background: It would seem to me that there are now a number of articles and/or possible articles. E.g.

• Soviet-Japanese Border Wars
• Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact
• Japanese attempts to end WWII while Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact still active
• Soviet-Japanese War (1945)
• Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)
  • [[Khingan-Mukden Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945)
  • [[Harbin-Kirin Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945)
  • [[Sungari Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945)
• The Japanese surrender:
  • a) Internal Japanese wrangling;
  • b) Japanese attempts to avoid unconditional surrender;
  • c) American "manouvres":
    • i) whether to drop 0, 1, 2 or 3 bombs;
    • ii) justifying dropping bombs;
    • iii) whether to insist on unconditional surrender;
    • iv) "dealing" with the Soviets; the Chinese; the British; others;
  • d) Soviet "manouvres";
  • e) etc.
• South Sakhalin Army Group Offensive Operation (August 11, 1945 - August 25, 1945)
• Seisin Landing Operation (August 13, 1945 - August 16, 1945)
• Kuril Landing Operation (August 18, 1945 - September 1, 1945)
• Operation Downfall and similar
• End of World War II in the Pacific
• "Aftermath" articles: e.g. Evacuation of Manchukuo, Japanese POWs in the Soviet Union, etc.

Ideas

1) I think that, either, there needs to be a certain amount of rationalisation, or, some sort of structure/framework is required. (Or both!) What do you think?

2) What's missing from the above list?

3) I quickly roughed out a proposed structure for the Soviet-Japanese War (1945) article - see Talk:Soviet-Japanese War (1945)#Article about the war. Perhaps you can comment on that structure?

It was done in haste. It doesn't quite match:

• 1 Background
• 2 Chronology (preceding diplomatic relationships)
• 3 Pre-war events (economic aspects of going to war and sustaining it)
• 4 Course of the war (deployment of forces)
• 5 Aftermath
• 6 Impact of the war

I think it should. Your suggestions would be appreciated.

Also: "All the references I would offer to the full name are from Russian language sources." - Well, some of those would be better than the no-references-at-all that we currently have ...

Unrelated: Some time in the next month I need to do the family's income tax returns. Hence, if I go quiet for a period, it's because I'm doing "unpaid work for the Australian Tax Office". i.e. Nothing personal!

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I may disappear for a month or so around late September or early October.

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation

I live in Brazil so this is the best definition of Strategic Offensive Operation I found:

Book: Colossus reborn: the Red Army at war : 1941-1943

Author: David M. Glantz page 82

""a system of offensive operations unified by a single Stavka concept and conducted to achieve the military-political aims of a campaign"."

So the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation is a system of offensive operations designed to achieve military-political goals. Such article should define this system and define its goals.

IMO the conduction of the operation falls outside of the scope of such article. So the article Soviet invasion of Manchuria or Battle of Manchuria should inform that the Soviet plans and objectives are detailed in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation article. EconomistBR 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Yes, I agree that "Such article should define this system and define its goals.", but I'm not sure why you're saying the actual execution of the operation plan falls outside the scope. The word "Operation" is in the title - if the plan is not executed, then it's just a plan, not an operation. Also, as you say, it's a system of operations, not just a system of plans. So, I guess that means I disagree? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO the actual execution is the scope of the Battle that the Strategic Offensive Operation generated. Also given that a SOO is complex one would need a plan in order to conduct it.

What's the subject of an article entitled Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation?

IMO MSOO is a system of offensive operations in the planning phase. So an article describing Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation would have to also detail Soviet plans for the Hokkaido Landing Operation, even though that didn't happen: Which units would land where? Estimated strength of the defenders, objectives and so on. EconomistBR 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You have raised several points here.

Before I address them, I'd like to clarify what I mean when I use "plan", "execution" and "Operation". Maybe I've had too much exposure to Australian doctrine and this is biasing my POV? I'm not quite sure what it is we are disgreeing on - choices include: conflicting definitions of words; semantics of the English language; "implicit" assumptions which are "obvious" to one of us but obscure non-sequiturs to the other; some-thing else ...

In Australian doctrine, the planning phase and the execution phase are two sub-phases of "the operation".

Hence, when you ask me "What's the subject of an article entitled ... ", my answer is "the operation" - the other words in the title are adjectives - and to me, that means "the whole shooting match", including both planning and execution.

"IMO the actual execution is the scope of the Battle that the Strategic Offensive Operation generated." - Well yes, but to me, the battle is part of the operation, not separate from the operation.

And yes, I agree that all the other things you mention are part of the planning phase (which to me, is part of the operation.)

I'm not sure if that gets us any closer to a solution or not! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am not sure that this conjecturing is helping us either.

The article Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II doesn't help us, it has mostly empty links or redirects and it has only 1 source citation. Also there isn't a proper definition of SOO, let alone an article about it. I believe that these two facts will make it harder for us to reach a definitive conclusion about this issue. Unless sources are found I am afraid that this will remain an open case. EconomistBR 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So, let's clarify the definition of "the problem":

You are saying a Strategic Offensive Operation is a plan (group of plans) that leads to, but does not include, a battle (group of battles).

I'm saying a Strategic Offensive Operation is an operation (group of operations) which involves a number of phases, one of which is a planning phase, (which leads to a plan / group of plans).

Or is there more to this discussion than that? Pdfpdf (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want a reference to support my POV, there's the Australian Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP), which is probably derived from some piece of US Military doctine. I don't think it's classified. If so, the US doctrine almost certainly is not classified. I'll see if I can find a URL. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Glantz 2003

You may want to see Note 1 to Preface of Glantz's book on the operation. I added it as a source in the above article since this one is locked.

Also thanks. BTW: Which Glantz book? No7(1983); No8(1983); (1995); (2003) or one of his other works? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

2003 Mrg3105--124.187.144.11 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

JMAP

Australian Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP) refers to "operational level planning doctrine", not strategic (http://www.dodccrp.org/events/5th_ICCRTS/papers/Track2/017.pdf) Mrg3105 --138.130.104.119 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

True.

OK. So what is a "Strategic Operation"?

Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II

The Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II were major military events on the Eastern Front during the Second World War, commonly conducted by at least one Front or major part of its forces. The operations could be either defensive, offensive, a withdrawal, an encirclement, or a siege, always conducted by at least two Services of the armed forces, the ground forces and the air forces, and often included the naval forces. In most cases the strategic operations were divided into operational phases which were large operations in their own right. In very few cases the phases were tactical, such as those requiring amphibious landings.

So a "Strategic Operation" is an "Operation".

I interpret that as supporting evidence for my POV. (But then, I would, wouldn't I ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you are right the MSOO includes both the planning and the execution. But if the MSOO article includes both the planning and the execution, it risks repeating the "battle" article which is devoted to the execution.

Yes. I agree ... Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My idea was to split this, leave the planning to the MSOO and the excution to the "battle" article, so that "would attack " section on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria would go in the MSOO article.

I agree that splitting has its advantages. But you have jumped a couple of steps ahead of me here. I'm still back at the "What the heck is a SOO?" step, which I think we have now answered to our mutual understanding. (Yes?)

To me, there is a missing step which involves where a MSOO article fits in the "grand scheme" of things.

I think we agree the "MSOO Planning phase" is a (sub)-"entity" by itself. (Yes?) Is it worthy of an article by itself, or is it part of another article? If so, which article? If the latter, I would suggest the "Soviet-Japanese war" article. I think while saying the above, I have convinced myself that it's probably worthy of a separate article. The way I interpret your comments, I think that is probably your preference too?

Note, however, MSOOPp is a bit of a clumsy title. But MSOO is a "bad" title for an article about the MSOOPp. Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure a MSOO article could have both, but I don't know how that is going to work.

Neither do I. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I went looking for an example article on Wikipedia but there isn't one at the Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II article.

Fair enough. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say that a Strategic Offensive Operation is essentially a top-secret plan but I can't prove this nor I can be proven wrong, because there aren't any sources or a proper definition about this.

Agreed. Yes, it's a "Catch-22" type of situation, isn't it. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I fear that we are stuck.

EconomistBR 18:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm more optomistic. I'm fairly confident that if we can define what the problem is that we want to solve, we can work out a way to solve it.

At the moment, my "hypothesis" is that if we determine a structure for the "War" article, then these issues will "find their home" within that structure - the "war" article will become something of a lightly clothed skeleton "pointing" to a host of subordinate articles, which is where the volume of the "meat" will be.

Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am changing my position on this SOO issue.

Because of this lack of sources I am starting to doubt the notability of all SOOs. Why are we mentioning them?

IMO unless proper definition is given the option of deleting all mentions of SOOs on Soviet related article becomes a real one. In this case IMO we would only keep the Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II article.

Instead of hunting for the definition of this terminology that was presented to us, we should have only included it once it had been precisely defined.

I am not doubting the existence of the MSOO but IMO it's reasonable to question its notability.

"the "war" article will become something of a lightly clothed skeleton "pointing" to a host of subordinate articles" - I agree 100%, that's what I believe is the definition of "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars". IMO the Pacific War article follows this structure. EconomistBR 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchuria continued

What does IMO Nick-D's suggestion of making this conflict comply with the "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars" is very good and it should have been the guiding principle since the beginning. mean? What is the "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars"?

Suggestions: Does it really matter what it means? It's just a distraction - "let is pass through to the keeper". Let's concentrate on something useful and enjoyable, rather than get hot & bothered about red herrings. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I did create a separate article for SOOs, but it was eventually merged here.

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there is much to be "hot and bothered" about!

Indeed there is. One could spend all of one's time being hot & bothered if one wished. I prefer to enjoy life. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• A war is not solely military affair. This may come as a shock to some participants in the MHP, but wars are conflicts that can be rooted in, and ultimately encompass environments, cultures, societies, politicised populations, economic infrastructures, and only finally conflicting militaries. The largest of them all, and one that was contributed to by seemingly everyone and his dog, however has

1 Background

2 Chronology

3 Pre-war events

• 3.1 War in China
• 3.2 European occupations and agreements

4 Course of the war

• 4.1 War breaks out in Europe
• 4.2 Axis advances
• 4.3 The war becomes global
• 4.4 The tide turns
• 4.5 Allies gain momentum
• 4.6 Allies close in
• 4.7 Axis collapse, Allied victory

5 Aftermath

6 Impact of the war

• 6.1 Casualties and war crimes
• 6.2 Concentration camps and slave work
• 6.3 Home fronts and production
• 6.4 War time occupation
• 6.5 Advances in technology and warfare

• Aside from not giving equal time to some of the four other aspects of the conflict (if we consider environment as not significant consideration at the time), it still manages to neglect some very obvious aspects like the leadership personalities that were involved, and their politics, as a separate and significant cause of the war in its own right. See for example Masters and Commanders by Roberts
• Given the weight of numbers in Wikipedia English readership we can compare above to the following

1 Combatants before 1778

• 1.1 American armies and militias
• 1.2 Loyalists
• 1.3 British armies and auxiliaries
• 1.4 African Americans
• 1.5 Native Americans

2 War in the north, 1775–1780

• 2.1 Massachusetts
• 2.2 Quebec
• 2.3 New York and New Jersey
• 2.4 Saratoga and Philadelphia
  • 2.4.1 Saratoga campaign
  • 2.4.2 Philadelphia campaign

3 An international war, 1778–1783

• 3.1 Widening of the naval war
• 3.2 West Indies and Gulf Coast
• 3.3 India and the Netherlands
• 3.4 Southern theater
• 3.5 Northern and western Frontier

4 Yorktown and the Surrender of Cornwallis

5 Treaty of Paris

6 Historical assessment

• 6.1 Advantages/disadvantages of the opposing sides
• 6.2 Costs of the war
  • 6.2.1 Casualties
  • 6.2.2 Financial costs

1 Causes of secession

• 1.1 Slavery

2 Secession begins

• 2.1 Secession of South Carolina
• 2.2 Secession winter
• 2.3 The Confederacy
• 2.4 The Union states
• 2.5 Border states

3 Overview

• 3.1 The war begins
• 3.2 Anaconda Plan and blockade, 1861
• 3.3 Eastern Theater 1861–1863
• 3.4 Western Theater 1861–1863
• 3.5 Trans-Mississippi Theater 1861–1865
• 3.6 End of the war 1864–1865
• 3.7 Confederate Surrenders

4 Slavery during the war

5 Threat of international intervention

6 Victory and aftermath

• 6.1 Reconstruction
• 6.2 Results

• Do you see a consistent and "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars"? Mrg3105 --124.187.144.11 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume that question was rhetorical? As I said - "let it pass through to the keeper", and instead do something interesting, enjoyable and useful. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Glantz 2003

You may want to see Note 1 to Preface of Glantz's book on the operation. I added it as a source in the above article since this one is locked.

Also thanks. BTW: Which Glantz book? No7(1983); No8(1983); (1995); (2003) or one of his other works? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• 2003 Mrg3105--124.187.144.11 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

JMAP

Australian Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP) refers to "operational level planning doctrine", not strategic (http://www.dodccrp.org/events/5th_ICCRTS/papers/Track2/017.pdf) Mrg3105 --138.130.104.119 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

True.

Strategic Operation

OK. So what is a "Strategic Operation"?

Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II

The Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II were major military events on the Eastern Front during the Second World War, commonly conducted by at least one Front or major part of its forces. The operations could be either defensive, offensive, a withdrawal, an encirclement, or a siege, always conducted by at least two Services of the armed forces, the ground forces and the air forces, and often included the naval forces. In most cases the strategic operations were divided into operational phases which were large operations in their own right. In very few cases the phases were tactical, such as those requiring amphibious landings.

So a "Strategic Operation" is an "Operation".

I interpret that as supporting evidence for my POV. (But then, I would, wouldn't I ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation

• Words fascinate me in as much as people use them often with no understanding :) In important articles I often tried to include a section on etymology that not only attempted to convey what the word mean originally, but also how that meaning changed over time, sometimes dramatically.

operation c.1386, "action, performance, work," also "the performance of some science or art," from O.Fr. (i.e. after c.750CE) operacion, from L. (i.e. before 450CE) operationem (nom. operatio) "a working, operation," from operari "to work, labor" (in L.L. i.e. during 450-850CE "to have effect, be active, cause"), from opera "work, effort," related to opus (gen. operis) "a work" (see opus). The surgical sense is first attested 1597. Military sense of "series of movements and acts" is from 1749. Operational attested from 1922.

• In English there are several etymologically related words that in military science are not related. To this end I edited an article Military operation, and someone else split a part fo it off into the Operations (military staff). I did commit a sin of pandering to populism by including the section Operational level of war although there is no such thing. It simply reflects the confusion and misunderstanding of operational mobility, another article I edited.
• However, in the West people just like catchy names :) And so the list of operations covered by Wikipedia before I started the list of strategic operation by the Red Army is fairly unchanged here Wikipedia's solution was just to ignore the 'operation' unless it came with a code word that was meaningless, as intended. :) As soon as I started offering operation names that stated where, scope and posture, the entire MHP was up in arms !!! By the way Buckshot06 added a quip at that article about the "Names of other operations have not been recorded and these have become known by their regional objective." citing Glantz, but of course as usual he was only thinking from his Anglophobic POV, and the operations were not forgotten at all, but simply not known because of the dearth of serious research before Erickson took the pains to learn Russian and go to USSR for his research, paving the way since the 1970s. However, Buckshot06 has a liking for displaying his ignorance in public, and Wikipedia is his best outlet for such activity. Glants of course makes the very prominent point on page 16 of that document in bold that “NO-ONE IS FORGETTEN, NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN”, a translation from Russian. Had Buckshot06 read the document he cited? I don't know. Where does he think Glantz got the names of the operations from, that "...have become known by their regional objective"? Has it ever occurred to him that this is how the Stavka named them? It doesn't fit into Buckshot06's, or seemingly other's, mentality that the Stavka could have operations named for their codenames and their strategic and operation objectives. On the other hand the US Army had the Lorraine Campaign, and that has no codename, and has an article so named though it was only a campaign of a single Army, and therefore was an operation, i.e. smaller than a strategically important Northern France and Rhineland Campaign, but larger than the assaults across the Moselle and Sauer Rivers, the battles of Metz and Nancy, and etc. No fuss over that. Mrg3105 --124.184.187.121 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (go for it Woody, I'm off to shopping)

Do not attribute things you don't like to me. The note on other operations not recorded was put in by Fluffy999 as he created the page, with this diff. Stop insulting people just because you haven't done the legwork to look up who created the page. Buckshot06(prof) 06:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II

BTW: Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II only mentions the Great Patriotic war and stops in May 1945 - no mention of the Far East. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Manchurian operation was intended to be a part of the Strategic operations list article, which is not finished. The reason it has so many redlinks is of course because no one is working on them. I thought that the name Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II was already long enough, and having a "List" in the list title is not obligatory.

• The reason "Operation" is added to the Soviet name is technical, and perhaps hardly required for the English reader though it was a part of the official name. In Russian 'operatziya' means something planned; it is also used in medicine for 'surgery'. It is unrelated to the "operational manoeuvre" that may be carried out as part of the planning. I assure you, I am not playing with words. Most of 1941 was spent by the Red Army conducting non-operational manipulation of forces. One has to realise this before applying the word "operation" to a plan.

• A strategic operation is a planned change in the strategic situation within a given theatre. At the start of the war the Red Army briefly had three such theatres in its European part called strategic directions. Buckshot06 redirected that article to Formations of the Soviet Army because his mind is incapable of accepting concepts, as opposed to subjects and objects. It is not of course a 'formation' any more than a theatre is.

• I had at one stage tried to get the Military History Project participants to think structurally given encyclopaedic articles are usually part of a structured knowledge base. To this end I suggested, to no avail, that articles need to be either named, or at least defined in the introductory leading sentence in terms of the scope and scale of combat being described. There is a propensity in English military history to overuse words like campaign, battle and invasion. In fact not every campaign is a campaign, and many battles are anything but.
• Alongside this there needs to be a fairly standardised article structure that woudl offer consistent look to all articles across the project range. To this end my proposals at different time and in different places included the following:

SCOPE AND SCALE

Global

Theatre

Strategic (region)

Operation

Battle

Engagement

Action

Contact

STRUCTURE

The article is always told from the perspective of the combat initiator, for its scope.

Introduction (summary of all following sections)

Background (as in the background operational briefing that military personnel get)

Background has to be literary (narrative, so wikilinked), while the rest is literal i.e. factual, so fully referenced

Leadership

Conceptualisation/Planning

Intelligence

Logistics

Forces

(Phases of combat)

Offensive (initiator) (Phase1)

Defensive

Execution (Phase 2)

Outcome (Phase 3)

Consequences for military history

Cultural significance (this is for media, pop culture and etc.)

The big problem with this is that it renders many articles substandard in one swift acceptance of the above. The discussions were not well participated and eventually went nowhere. Mrg3105--138.130.104.119 (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"The big problem with this is that it renders many articles substandard in one swift acceptance of the above." - I could attempt to be humourous and say, "How would you distinguish those substandard articles from the thousands of other substandard articles on WP?" (No, it's not funny. Sorry.)

"The discussions were not well participated and eventually went nowhere." - Yes, that's not unusual for WP ...

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

The trouble with the lifetime template is that the information in it is partially hidden, so it gets duplicated - see for example Herbert Winslow, or any of a couple of thousand other examples where there is (or was) a lifetime and one of the categories it generates or a DEFAULTSORT. This in turn leads to articles with inconsistent categories and conflicting DEFAULTSORTs. The benefit is that it is quicker to type, for setting up new articles, especially many of them. There is a subst only version "ltm" that can be used for this, {{subst:ltm|1909|1999|Bloggs, Fred}} of course it is one keystroke longer! Best regards, Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Hm?

You did nothing wrong. The page was rubbish - it was random keyboard-poundings, essentially a test page - and blanking it was a perfectly reasonable action.

Since you didn't add any content, there was no reason for the page to exist. I deleted it as a test page. So relax. DS (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Point taken; I'll try to use "test page" henceforth. DS (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Copyright

Thanks for that, no idea why it wasn't in the PD already... normangerman (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:John James Dwyer-E01731A.jpg

File:John James Dwyer-E01731A.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:John James Dwyer-E01731A.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:John James Dwyer-E01731A.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:AOUWatOddFellowsHalI-SF1900.jpg

In future, when you want a file deleted, just add the {{db-author}} tag to the file and it will deleted because it will be listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user that administrators review regularly. ww2censor (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's VERY useful to know! Thank you very much. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

In future, when you want a file deleted, just add the {{db-author}} tag to the file and it will deleted because it will be listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user that administrators review regularly. ww2censor (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's VERY useful to know! Thank you very much. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Puzzle

Simply put, there were no images at those pages. They were listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/File description pages without an associated file; the pages consisted entirely of a single category (Category:Images of The Citadel (military college)). There was no image associated with the page, and no other page content.

"However, categorizing nonexistent images seems... well... pointless." - Yes indeed! But now we get to the interesting bit. When I categorised the 6 images into Category:Images of The Citadel (military college) on 19 April 2009 (example) there were, six images. Some time between then and now, four of those six images "disappeared" somehow. I find that puzzling.

OK, I think I'm getting some idea of what's happened.

Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Citadel%2C_The_Military_College_of_South_Carolina&action=history, we see

• (cur) (prev) 04:48, 20 September 2009 CommonsDelinker (Talk | contribs) m (32,455 bytes) (Removing "Marion_Square_Citadel.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Nilfanion because: In category Unknown as of 30 August 2009; no source.) (undo)

Hmmm. It seems a large number of photos have been deleted

Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Citadel,_The_Military_College_of_South_Carolina&oldid=298694103

What do you advise as the easiest/quickest/least-effort-for-all method to restore all of the pictures that have been deleted?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't really help you from here. The image pages on Wikipedia only had one edit in their history—your adding the category to them (which, BTW, shouldn't typically be done... images on Commons should be categorized there, not here, but that's besides the point). I am not an admin on Commons so I can't look at the images and figure out what should be done. I would recommend asking User:Nilfanion on Commons about the images, since he deleted them there; you can link back to this discussion if you'd like. Unless the images are restored, I see no point to restoring the pages here with only their categories but no associated image; discuss this with Nilfanion, and maybe some conclusion can be reached. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unless the images are restored, I see no point to restoring the pages here with only their categories but no associated image" - I agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Because!?!

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at Thinking of England's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: Grammar

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 06:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tom Derrick

You may like to read this thread, and post with your own thoughts/comments. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads-up". Will reply in November. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone report

Hi, thanks for your comment on my user page. When selecting personnel, various candidates often refuse for whatever reasons, it's normal and a fact of life. Furthermore, since the mandate was de facto broadened to address specifically that reason, the reason for Robinsons refusal has since disappeared, which makes her refusal even more of an insignificant detail. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images and templates

Hi. Non free images can not be used in templates. That can not be discussed. Rettetast (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Heart (band)

In the future I highly advise you to be more courteous when writing your edit summaries, as I heartily resent being accused of violating consensus by making what I thought to be a routine cleanup. I am still fairly new to Wikipedia and would much rather be educated about protocol then be accused of any kind of procedural misconduct. In conclusion, WP:AGF. Regards, Texas Longhorn Cow Patrol (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to "normal"?

Failure to lodge on time

We may apply a penalty for failure to lodge on time if you lodge your tax return late.

Generally, we apply a penalty of $110 for every 28 days (or part thereof) your return is overdue, to a maximum of $550.

Etc...

Update: There is a recorded message on the ATO help line saying that tax returns do not have to be lodged until Friday 6 November.

I'll be back after 6 November. If you wish to contact me before then, please feel free to send me email.

Tom Derrick

You may like to read this thread, and post with your own thoughts/comments. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads-up". Will reply in November. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rhodes

That was my feeling. Thanks for the sanity check! Contaldo80 (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be gone too long! It would be a crime to lose you - you've done some excellent work. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

New life saving important messages await!

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at A8UDI's talk page.
Message added 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A8UDI talk 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived webpages

Hi, saw your notes on Byrce's talk page. You may use webarchive.org to see the webpages that have been archived at specific points including version updates. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at A8UDI's talk page.
Message added 12:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A8UDI talk 12:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Baker

Why can't I move Stephen Baker (disambiguation) to Stephen Baker? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have redirected Stephen Baker to Stephen Baker (disambiguation). Disambiguation pages should not be moved - just instead redirect the original article to the disambiguation one :) Oh and please from now on, use the helpme template on your user talk instead.  Ilyushka88  talk  14:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Go here to see more about redirecting.  Ilyushka88  talk  14:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a mistake there. See WP:DABNAME. You need an admin to move it though  Ilyushka88  talk  14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[It seems my question was not clear enough. I knew I needed an admin to do it. What I wanted to know was "Why?"] Pdfpdf (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because if the page name you are moving to has edit history (beyond simply creating the page in the first place), in order to do the move you need to delete the target page, and deletions can only be performed by admins (as Wikipedia is configured). David Underdown (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Now that you have explained it to me, the following DOES make sense:

Note that the page will not be moved if there is already a page at the new title, (unless it is empty or a redirect) and (has no past edit history).

I read it as: (unless it is empty) or (a redirect and has no past edit history), and couldn't work out why the move over the emptied page wasn't working ...

Thank you; most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope one of you has reviewed Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and particularly the section "Links to disambiguated topics" -- as it states there, "A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links. Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name." Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pdfpdf. You have new messages at A8UDI's talk page.
Message added 11:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A8UDI 11:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: What a Fool Believes (Matt Bianco 12" Vinyl

The Data has been merged into the original song page. Check it out

Conquistador2k6 30 October 2009 12:37 (UTC)

Uh!? (Combe)

I was just looking at the issues and had no idea any of that was your stuff, or anyone else's. I really can't see it as "fussy" to ditch unhelpful citations. Just sorry I seem to have hurt your feelings. Nothing of the sort was intended. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Non-free

See our non-free content criteria, specifically #8. Non-free content cannot be used in tables, list articles, galleries, or that sort of thing. They can only be used to identify the subject of the article, as in Des Corcoran. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I happened to have one of the images watchlisted from some prior issue, and noticed you adding the rationale for the list article. Thanks for fixing it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)