Nirvana77

Welcome!

Hello, Nirvana77, 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!  Crazynas ^t 15:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Jam

Please go to the discussion section regarding your changes to the article.-5- (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd just rather have this discussed so that a consensus can be reached and a decision can be made regarding how this should be stated in the article. This isn't the first time this has come up actually.-5- (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can, try to get the attention of the users WesleyDodds and CloudNine. They have done a lot of work on the Pearl Jam article.-5- (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I try to stay away from the big arguments. I just try to maintain the article. I would really suggest getting the attention of someone like WesleyDodds, who was heavily involved in getting the article to featured article status.-5- (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, here's the link to the peer review for the article: [1]-5- (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian War

Hi, we obviously cannot agree on the Bosnian War article. I take your recent entry on my talk page as a positive reply to my suggestion to take it to arbitration. I will set this in motion. On a second note, I see that you are rather new (?) to Wikipedia. However, I would seriously suggest that you change your tone of voice if we are going to have a constructive dialogue.Osli73 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Jam/Metallica album sales

Hi. For this info, I've used the RIAA website, which is the only reliable source. The only way to really research it (and it's not foolproof) is to search for any RIAA sales awards given to each band between Jan 1990 and Dec 1999. For Pearl Jam this is fine because they started in 1990, but this is more difficult for Metallica as they already had a few albums out by 1990. What I've done for these albums (eg. Ride the lightning) is look at any awards given during the 90's, and subtracted previous awards. This gives us a fairly close estimate of the sales of those albums just during the 90's. Here's the results, figures are in millions (platinum awards):

Metallica: Black album - 9 Load - 3 Master of Puppets - 2 Ride the Lightning - 2 Kill em All - 1 And Justice for All - 3

Total = about 20

Pearl Jam: Ten - 11 Vs - 6 Vitalogy - 5 No Code - 1 Yield - 1 Lo2L - 0.5

Total = 24.5

No one is debating that Metallica have sold more albums in total (57 million to 30 million - RIAA), and that the Black album has sold more than Ten (14 million to 12 million - RIAA), but during the 1990's, Pearl Jam sold at least 4 million more albums than Metallica in the US. I hope this settles the debate. Kristmace (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I take your point about original research. I've not collected the data myself, only retrieved it from an online database, which is here: [2]. Also, I don't think it's that unreasonable that the Black album has sold 5 million in the last 8 years and Ten sold 1 since in the early 90's Pearl Jam (and Ten included) were far more popular than they are today, whereas Metallica's fanbase has probably grown. I do have reservations about the statement in the article anyway. Maybe it should point out that it's a leading music journalist making the statement. I don't think it's as cut and dried as album sales or anything like that - it's just very subjective. The "most popular" statement refers to the US really which goes against WP:worldwide view. Anyway, we'll see how this pans out. Also, I'm not saying this should be cited as a source. The statement is a quote, so is already referenced - it's just a subjective quote. Kristmace (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

Laughable! AS you say, it is a German victory. "Allied operational failure" is just rubbish. You could say the Battle of Britain was a "Axis operational failure" too. Let's get this going again! Wallie (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Malin Akerman

I don't dispute that Akerman is Swedish-Canadian. That's not the issue here. The issue is specifically what should go into the opening paragraph of her article. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) (Opening paragraph, #3) - the opening paragraph should state "Nationality - In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable... Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. " I don't doubt that Akerman was a Swedish citizen at birth, but is there any evidence that she retains Swedish citizenship rather than Canadian? She has been a national of Canada since the age of two, and of course was one when she became notable. Unless she is a dual citizen, the "Swedish" part doesn't match the Manual of Style's description of how she should be described in the opening. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WW2 serious books.

Hello, I am the guy you argued with on the Battle of Stalingrad. We were talking about serious history books, and especially serious WW2 history books. Well, I got one for you:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=HP3-9NNz71sC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=soviet+artillery+preparation&source=bl&ots=lADusMRFNy&sig=3lJPCa0469S4XW4CJ0Vwpduwjiw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

Look at this book. I suggest you read pages 152-159 (starting from "Bagration"), just to destroy some stupid stereotypes about red army that you might (and I am sure you do, evidently from your posts) have, like use of only big numbers of infantry, inferior equipment, no tactics, head on assault, great loses, etc... Then look at the references at the end of a chapter. People referenced there are german commanders (Manstein, Guderian, etc..), russian commander, and some military historians. Reference page after the end of a chapter takes up a whole 3 pages, and that is for one chapter. I could not find a single Bergstrom or Beevor reference. Can you guess why? Look at the tone of this book, and contrast it to the Beevor's sensationalist tone.

Now the punch line: you could call all this biased, propoganda, soviet or russian, you can call this book sensationalist or wrong, if not for one thing - it is written by american authors from United States Military Academy. The worth of this book as a reference is indescriptively more than all the Beevor's books taken together, Beevor is no match for serious historians, whether you like it or not. Although I do not agree with estimates of this book at the end of the war, and neither would a lot of people now, this bok is nevertheless, an example of a referenced history book.

You wrote that I am biased to anyone that does not portray Red army as good. This is not entirely true. I am biased to those who portray red army as totally bad and evil (Beevor), and especially to those who do not tell me where they take this opinion from. Tell me one thing, why is it that in any serious fully referenced book, Red Army is portrayed in a neutral light, while almost any book that portrays red army in a bad and evil way is utterly unreferenced and is written for very gullible people who do not like to ask too many questions (clearly, Beevor's book is written for such audience)?--99.231.48.138 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

War

Made a change on the Yugoslav wars page and discussed it [\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yugoslav_wars#Recent_Changes here]. What do you think?(Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)).

Have a look

Your report: [3] (LoL... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:My take

Well Nirvana, I must say that IMHO "Pyrrhic victory" is POV. If the Battle of Heraclea is not called a "Pyrrhic victory", I see no reason for Vukovar to be labeled as such. It was a Serbian victory, admittedly a relatively large number of tanks was destroyed, but the JNA employed several thousand tanks. Contrary to popular opinion in Cro, the JNA advance was not stopped by Croatian forces, indeed, little could've stopped the main body of the JNA to occupy all of Slavonia after the town fell. Croatian forces were at the time simply no match for the JNA, which had the military power to absorb casualties several times greater than that. Militarily, it is not a "Pyrrhic victory", and even if it were, the NPOV of using that term is debatable.

Its rather a complex issue, I'll go into it a little deeper if you don't mind. It was primarily for political reasons, little related to actual military operations that the JNA advance was halted: Milošević now openly opposed Kadijević's plan to depose the Croatian "Ustaše" government, instead refocusing on a more sinister agenda of annexing Croatian territory directly into a larger Serbian state (and reducing Croatia to an independent rump instead of preventing its secession). This is similar to the situation in the Ten-day War. Elite JNA units, such as the paratroop brigade, were positioned and fully capable of smashing the Slovene TO and removing the Slovene government, and with even greater ease than the Croatian government in 1991/92. Milošević, however, no longer desired to keep Yugoslavia together, instead focusing on a pan-Serbian state. Jović utterly shocked the JNA command by ordering them to stand down. According to Kadijević, he threatened to establish the "Army of Serbia" and completely dismantle the JNA, which was now (reluctantly) at his mercy.
When talking about the early war, it is important to understand the difference between the JNA and Greater Serbia advocates such as Milošević. The JNA dreamed of deposing the Croatian, Slovene, and BiH governments that suggested secession, they generally considered them to be compromised by foreign influence (particularly the HDZ). To them, old-school communists, changing republican borders was completely unacceptable (at best they agreed to merging Kosovo and Vojvodina with Serbia). The military command, particularly Kadijević, also realized that Milošević was the primary cause of popular support these foreign agents enjoyed. Kadijević expressed his opinion that, in order for Yugoslavia to be saved in 1991, Milošević should step down and (supposedly) the Presidency temporarily disbanded and replaced by a military provisional government - in order to "prevent the war and keep the country together". Milošević, naturally, didn't like the idea very much. His response to the "suggestion" is not documented, and Kadijević (a half-Croat half-Serb) retired in 1992 (probably pretty miserably)... He's often criticized for not using his command to dispose of Milošević and prevent the Breakup... I personally don't think that makes much sense, as Milošević was extremely powerful. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

np, glad to help --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

btw, without presuming anything on your beliefs, I recommend you have a look :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

battle of the bulge

what u call "vandalism" can u read here: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_25.htm#p650 .

quotes:

• "y 2 January 1945, the eve of the Allied attack to destroy the Ardennes salient, the Germans had thrown 8 armored divisions, 20 infantry divisions, and 2 mechanized brigades into the Battle of the Bulge"
• "The strength of the German infantry divisions across the board probably averaged little more than 10,000 men."
• "The majority of the German panzer divisions had the same manpower configuration as the two U.S. square armored divisions (the 2d and 3d), that is, a little more than 14,000"

i think they include nordwind, i often read 250.000 germans. your 500.000 are simply not possible.

next article http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/ardennes/aral.htm

• "A recently published German scholarly source gave the following German casualty totals: Ardennes�67,200; Alsace (not including Colmar Pocket)�22,932. Most of the figures cited do not differentiate between permanent losses (killed and missing), wounded, and non-battle casualties. "

i explained on discussion page already but i do it again for u YOUR 90.000, ARE NORDWIND + BULGE

i hope u understand that u are wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hi, in the future for things like WQA it's good to use Diffs so people don't go have to go hunting for what your talking about. Happy editing!--SKATER ^Speak. 01:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian War

That stuff may be unsourced but I hope you realize that it would not be the work of a top researcher to find several sources that state similar. Instead of removing it outright it may be better to attempt to find a source. Anyway I'll not go against you here but don't be too trigger happy with the reverting. Polargeo (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay Nirvana. point taken. I am just trying to make sure we are both not overreverting stuff on Bosnian War. Me definitely included. I don't want to get too trigger happy myself. Sometimes I think we should both defer to a little talkpage action although I know how much nonsense gets added to the page so it is very difficult. Polargeo (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Fallujah

On November 16 the operation was finished. You are correct 95 US Marines were killed during Nov 7-Dec 25 but only 51 Marines were killed during the operation which was Nov 7-Nov 16. So that is why I changed the number back to 51 for 95 is inaccurate. Note Icasualties is a great source to reference but it does not tell you if the troops were killed in the operation or not. My other source does, you can look it up yourself among other sources in google. (USMCMIDN (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Battle of Monte Cassino

Hi, I've made some comments on the Allied casualty figures. What is clear (from Ellis) is that the 105,000 figure includes both Anzio and the period from when the Cassino IV operation finished up to the capture of Rome - which is much more than the scope of the Battle of Cassino article. Also I've re-read the reference in the Jordan Atlas of World War II on the 90,000 Fifth Army casualties and believe you have mis-read the context. The section in which this reference appears deals with the period up to Cassino but not Cassino itself. The Gustav Line fighting (incl Cassino) is in the next section. Sadly this following section makes no reference to casualties. I wondered how you thought this might be handled in the article. If you have a view, perhaps you might comment in the battle of Cassino Talk page? If not I'll have a crack at re-drafting it in a day or so. Regards. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Western Front (World War II), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ernst Busch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Western Front (World War II)

Hello, there was very recently a discussion on the talk page of this article regarding which persons should be mentioned in the "commanders and leaders" section of the infobox. Very briefly, the decision agreed to was to include leaders of army group command and above, which is why leaders like Crerar and De Lattre were not included. Request you review the discussion on the talk page and either 1) make your comments and recommendations regarding the infobox or 2) consider reverting your edits. I'll be glad to join you in discussion on the article talk page if you wish. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the further edits. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Bosnian War, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.219.58.106 (talk) 09:24, 18 June 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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nirvana77. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nirvana77. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)