User talk:Esn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
| 01 (Mar 21-Oct 31 2006) |
[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] overfishing
thanks for the good contribution to this article and the new reference. This article has been too timid with respect to "telling it like it is", with too much editing form the fishing industry and the "politiaclly correct" timid crowd. i hope you will continue to add to this important article. best regards. Anlace 02:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] L'Enfant au grelot
Wasn't this one a short ? I was actually thinking of La Prophétie des grenouilles (Raining Cats and Dogs) as Girerd's first feature.Ji-Elle 11:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I haven't seen it, but most French sources mention 26 or 28', for instance Unifrance, an official (and very useful) database (http://www.unifrance.org/films/detail_film.asp?CommonUser=&langue=21004&cfilm=20905).
Couldn't "52'" refer to the duration of the whole DVD (including other shorts) ?.
Yes, it's great to work on this project in parallel. I'm rather out of practice in English, but any language will do. Ji-Elle 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your graph proposal on the eastern front is bad
Why do you compare all Soviet losses with the lowest number of Germans military losses in the field
Why compare the 31 (which is 28 million not 31!) million soviet dead with ONLY German dead in the field. And then use the absolut lowest number for Germans who died in the field
Why do you totally ignore the axis dead Over 1 million German allies also died this you ignore
Why do you list civilians and military togheter
And why even install that graph at all because there is are much better graphs several at the bottom of the page
To compare ALL Soviet citisens who died with the lowest estimate of German military losses is bad.
You split up German military who died useing the lowest number in the field and the highest number in POW but you do not split up the Soviet military who died in the field and who died in camps and then you add Soviet civilians and compare this number with German military dead (the lowest number) in the field. Beenhj 14:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok, but the numbers are all wrong look at the end of the text and you will see that your numbers are all wrong. Beenhj 00:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Look the the numbers at the bottom are correct and have many sources and I think this whole infobox thing is a big misstake but if you are going to use them then atleast have correct numbers for example the german numbers are pre 2004, because if you look at the bottom you can see a german guy who wrote a book in 2004 and those numbers are used, why? Because he went through all German records of 1956 and all of the soldiers that could not be found or accounted for he declared dead. Also the sources used here are ENGLISH you must use English sources in english wikipedia, look I will mail the dude who wrote half the page and you can talk with him, but now i will change the numbers so that they fit with the ENGLISH modern sources listed at the bottom of the page. Beenhj 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes there is no absolut law but English SHOULD be used look there are many sources at the bottom also I know that the official Soviet military dead was 8,646,400 or something like that but a Russian guy called "Vadim Erlikman" in his book Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke: spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071 estimated that looking at the number of males between 19-49 that died (17 million) the official number is low. Look I have mailed the dude who wrote half the page and made all the graphs, he is a bit crazy and insane but he knows the numbers left and right up and down and side to side just wait until he mails you back Beenhj 00:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The user got blocked again, he gets blocked every 5 minutes but you can check out the World War II casualties all numbers have been listed there. There is a guy called User:Woogie10w who knows English, Russian and German he keeps an eye on that page just shoot him a message and he will answer you. He also has access to vast amount of numbers Beenhj 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] User:Esn/Temp
...now contains the article you're looking for. To revoke a deletion decision, please see WP:DRV. (Radiant) 16:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This part was deleted
"(Russian: Великая Отечественная Война, Velikaja Otečestvennaja Vojna), a name which alludes to the Russo–Napoleonic Patriotic War on Russian soil in 1812. The term Great Patriotic War appeared in the Soviet newspaper Pravda one day after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, in a long article titled "The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet People" (Russian: Великая Отечественная война cоветского народа). The term "war against aggression" was used by the Soviet Union before the involvement of the United States and Japan."
Do you understand?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.249.102.38 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 November 2006.
- Yes, I realized only later that it was deleted because the information was moved to another article so as not to clutter up the main article about the Eastern Front. Esn 11:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- In reverting, you also reverted another edit that was made. Be more carefull next time. I'm reverting to 67.168.24.170's version because the text in question was not deleted from the article, just moved. Esn 11:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
To move is to delete, who will know that it has been moved? --> Not many. If you move around bits and pieces of an article then sooner or later nothing will be left. Moveing something is the same as deleting but just much fancier.
- If that is your view, then I suggest you go to the article on World War II and move back all of the stuff that has been moved to other articles. Move all of the info on every single battle back into the main WWII article, ok? You would make a lot of people angry, though.
- It is wikipedia policy for things to be moved into sub-articles.
- You may not have noticed this, but the user who moved the text created a link on the words "Great Patriotic War" - if anyone is interested in that term, they will click on it. Esn 20:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re: 71.249.95.231 (talk • contribs) plus others
I am not an admin so I cannot block him. There are a couple of other IP's(same user different computer?) who make the same POV changes to those articles as well. Make up a detailed report about the IP's constant attacks on Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd and submit it to WP:ANI. Perhaps an Admin familiar with the situation will take note and look after things. WP:ANI is "hit n miss" so good luck. In the meantime I will watch those pages for similar "Pro-Lloyd/Anti-Charlie" edits. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 15:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Our Gang
I responded to your questions on the talk page. I think the image is definitely better than the low-res one previously used, but it is not public domain. The website is incorrect: that's Andy Samuel, not Jay R. Smith, and the picture was taken in either late 1923 or early 1924 (Ernie Morrison departed Our Gang sometime in spring 1924). I added a fair use rationale and the proper fair use tag, and swapped the images out. Thanks for finding that photo! --FuriousFreddy 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Request for your opinion
Affirmative. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••CCD••• 21:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Same Kc4 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Archiving
I notice that you have a lot of discussion. Perhaps you would be interested in archiving. Werdnabot can make it easier. Kc4 21:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Kc4, but I prefer to do it myself for now - if this user page becomes a lot more active, though, I may change my mind. Esn 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter
The November 2006 issue of the Films 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. Cbrown1023 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ratatooooooy
yeah, I see what you're saying. SpikeJones 15:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ise
Thanks, i had a Firefox plugin that auto-spell checks... so much for innovation. The rest of the article does not seem to go towards the British or American spellings. You are the first major contributor... revert it? Well done on the List of stop-motion films--Cans 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
