Ko Soi IX

Welcome!

Hello, Ko Soi IX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  --Lysy^talk 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Międzymorze

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Khoikhoi 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

logging in

I've seen lately several entries at talk pages added by anon IP's signed "Kosoi". Perhaps they are yours. Please remember to always check that you are logged in when editing. This makes everyon'es life easier for a number of reasons. -Irpen 00:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They are mine. The reason behind their existance was my former job, as I was not able to register from there.

Get-together

Here are some hints for you. There are a number of places where Russian, Ukrainian, Polish wikipedians get together: Portal:Russia/New article announcements, Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board, Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements, Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board, Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. You may want to check some of these from time to time or even add them to your watchlist. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:History of Poland (1918–1939)

Hi there, I saw your thoughtful comments on this pages and decided that you may be interested in a related discussion which takes place on Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article World War II

Hello, Ko Soi IX. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some articles

You may be interested in a couple of discussion taking place right now. If you have time, please take a look at Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), talk:Soviet partisans and talk:Polonization. Cheers, --Irpen 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell do you consider Stalin an Army Marshal?

Because he was one. He was the supreme commander during the war, and, unlike his western counterparts, who, while being commanders, remained civilians, held a military rank. Simple facts, buddy, no need to scream "idiot" or anything like that. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalin was NOT a "Great Patriot"

Explain to me how a man who sent millions of his own people to gulags can be described as a "Great Patriot" ESPECIALLY by modern day Russians? Aparently from your reaction on the Stalin talk page you share this feeling. It is no different than that exchange student from Pskov that I befriended who one day when I brought up the sensitive subject of the second world war she told me "Stalin was Great Patriot!" Stalin was a second Hitler. John 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the millions of people passed through the penitentiary system as the most important achievment of Stalin's era. To elaborate more on that matter - most of the people in the prisons and labor camps weren't innocent even by today's standarts. Surely, there were excesses, and outright crimes carried out, but to what extent those are Stalin's personal fault is highly debatable.

However, the achievment of the Stalin's era are astounishing. In ten short years Russia has turned from an peasant nation to an industrial powerhouse. Not only did the country become much stronger, but the level of life of an average citizen improved greatly. Under Stalin's competent leadership the Soviet Union defeated Europe (led by Germany).

Science flourished during Stalin's times, and while the space breakthrough came 4 years after his death, it was a product of a system established during Stalin's era.

The long rivalry with the Japanese agressor was settled and our lands returned.

I could go on and on about both the achievments and the grievances of Stalin's times, but I presume the above should answer your question about Stalin being a patriot. Of course, if you would rather believe the opinions mass media throws at you (such as Stalin=Hitler), than there is little I could do.

As well it seems you ignore the fact that Kruschev wanted nothing more than to remove the shadow of Stalin as far away as possible from Russia and the Soviet Union. John 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Barbarossa

I consider your characterization of Barbarossa as a "Soviet strategic victory" to constitute original research. I've had my three reverts for today, but unless you come up with a reliable source to back up this claim, I will feel obliged to revert again at a later date. I'm posting this on the article talk page as well, please come and discuss the issue there, thanks. Gatoclass 07:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a word

I do not want to start any side discussion on the talk page of Polish War Contribution, so I am writing it now. Obviously, Polish and Russian points of view differ, this is natural and obvious. I am happy that so far we have been able to discuss in a civilized matter, I always have respect to people who respect me. Also - Russia is a great country which I admire, I wish our mutual history had not been so complicated. Greets Tymek 19:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tak, neither do I, for such fruitless discussion could go on forever. That's what's good about wiki, that we, Pole and Russian, can come together, and try to come with a balanced and accurate description of what really happened, especially when dealing with something that has been a matter of heated debate for so long. Really, there is no reason for uncivilized discussion - for it's a sign of weakness and of lack of other arguments. Same with respect. While I'm flattered by your opinion of Russia, my opinion of Poland is not as great; but yet I do find myself humming the "Warshavyanka" every now and than, or reading Senkewitch or Korchak, or Jan Dlugosh's accounts of the bravery of Poles, Russians (the so-called Rusins, or Western Russians, back than there was no difference) and Lithuanians against the common enemy an Grunwald. Yes, we both commited crimes to each other in the past, and because lately Russia was obvioulsy stronger, our latter crimes far outweight yours. Yet I'm sure that eventually this stuff will be left behind (but hopefully not forgotten). Cheers. With respect, Ko Soi IX 19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Grunwald

Would you like to explain the importance of having the translation of that battle from four very close languages four times. This is a non-information, read redundancy. -- User:Gf1961 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.61.96 (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Those are the languages of the participants in this battle, used in a way common to other battles/wars and I don't understand, why do you see a problem with that. With respect, Ko Soi IX 13:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a problem in listing them. But I consider it ridiculous,to repeat the translation four times. --Gf1961 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, there is a hint of redundancy there, but which ones would you want to weed out? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility on Continuation War

Please keep the discussion on Talk:Continuation War civil. I know some of the other editors can be inflammatory sometimes but it doesn't help the article if you take the bait. --Stlemur (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're abolutely right. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

article structure consistency

Would like your input on the article structure I have developed for the series of articles dealing with Eastern Front operations. I am particularly concerned with the introduction section vs the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, but I have found way too much information inserted in them in other articles, duplicating information in 'campaign boxes' and repeated in the introductions that follow Contents.

Below is a suggested standard structure for article taxonomy based more on the military terminology, and incorporating a way of describing an event that follows a more military event structure.

• ‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question when, where, who, why, larger context, significance, and outcome.) Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.

+Contents (here)

• Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.

• • Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
  • Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
  • Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
  • Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle

• Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.

• • Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
  • Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
  • Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
  • Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack

• Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts

• • Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
    • Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
  • Side D
    • Forces involved

• Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:

• • Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
  • Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
  • Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
  • Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
  • Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan

• Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan

• • Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
  • Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events

• Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
• Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
• Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
• References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
• Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
• Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
• See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
• Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
• Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader

The purpose of the article structure suggested above is not to straight-jacket the authors and editors, but to enhance consistency of presentation throughout the project’s assortment of articles to the reader, and to enable the future editors to be more focused in the editing process by providing more focused sections in the article structure. Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Revisionism" of Kharkiv vs Kharkov

Hi. I'm not interested in reverting your edit, but I do take exception to the comment in your edit summary.

Firstly, just to establish the facts, unlike Leningrad/St Petersburg and Byzantium/Istanbul, Kharkiv (Харків) and Khar’kov (Харьков) are the same name in two languages, neither being English. Its name has never changed. An analogue is English Saint Petersburg vs French Saint-Pétersbourg (Sankt-Peterburg in Russian, by the way).

The status of many place names in Ukraine is much more complicated than you imply by invoking "revisionism". Kharkiv was the Ukrainian capital in 1917–34, and Ukrainian was the primary official language in Ukraine for most of that period (see Ukrainization). Russian was imposed by Stalin in the early 1930s, along with a terrible campaign against Ukrainian identity in culture and politics, and a roundabout result is that Russian place names are used by English-language historians of WWII (the same who indiscriminately refer to the Red Army as "the Russians", despite 2.5–3.5M Ukrainian soldiers dying in its ranks). The official re-adoption of Ukrainian names is part of Ukrainian citizens' chosen self-identity, including those of Russian ancestry. The fact that the topic can be controversial in Ukraine and elsewhere is all the more reason to treat it with sensitivity.

The fact is that Kharkiv is used in English generally since 1991, and always has been in mainstream histories of Ukraine (e.g. Subtelny 1988, Magocsi 1996, Yekelchyk 2007). The use of Kharkov by historians of WWII can be considered the anachronism, and it ought to be applied with care. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 23:03 Z

Battle of West Ukraine (1944)

Thanks for adding the Soviet casualties and strength to the article, I've been trying to find someplace that has them. However, would you mind formatting the reference with Template:Cite Web? I'm trying to make the references as neat as possible, since if I ever decide to take it to A-class or FA that'll be an issue. I don't speak Russian, so I can't. Thanks! Joe (Talk) 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)