Longsars

May 2022

Hello, I'm Mako001. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Habsburg monarchy, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

There was no such a country as "Habsburg Monarchy", it was not official name, you can not see it on institutions, offices, coat-of arms, law texts, seals, nowhere in any official documents. It was always used by historians only as an umbrella term. We must emphasize that. Read: https://www.visitingvienna.com/culture/habsburg-monarchy-introduction/ --Longsars (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Continuing the casualty talk

Alright, continuing where it's no longer off-topic.

1. Cold War era books aren't unreliable just because they were written in the cold war. The books are still written by professionals.

2. You didn't bring any "new source" using those presented numbers.

Why I use "new source"? Because the figure of 250,000 killed comes from a a report of the Romanian Government in 1924, which estimated 1 million men mobilized, 250,000 killed (check). To quote Urlanis: "The figure reported by the Rumanian Government, in reply to a questionnaire from the International Labour Office seems much more reliable. The Rumanian Government estimated the number of killed and dead soldiers and officers of the Rumanian Army at 250,000". However, he continues with "If we set the number who died in captivity at 40,000, from disease at 30,000 (see p. 157) and accidents at 3,000, losses during hostilities would amount to 177,000. Even assuming that one-seventh of the battle losses died from wounds, we are left with a total number of killed of 152,000."

And the figure of men mobilized featured on wikipedia, that being 750,000, comes from Spencer Tucker (which in turn apparently comes from the United States War Department, also from 1924), which if correct would mean Urlanis' estimates are much closer to reality regarding the losses. To quote his comments on higher estimates of losses "A figure of 339,117 killed could only be true of an army of several million men, which Rumania did not have.", also note that Urlanis uses the figure of 1 mil. men mobilized in his estimates.

So, the wikipedia list of losses is far from correct and uses two different sources while taking the number from one and the other number from the second. Alin2808 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Read: https://europecentenary.eu/romania-the-third-highest-number-of-casualties-in-the-first-world-war/

Romania had low ratio of machineguns and close to zero heavy artillery, so the high number of KIA is not suprising.--Longsars (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Already read it, check again: "Nearly 250.000 soldiers and 430.000 civilians died during the war", it's not an exact number as there was no thorough study done. Also just look at that table and see how said table is getting contradicted by the article. Point is, many estimates exist regarding the number of soldiers mobilized and killed, all ranging from 1,000,000 to 750,000 for the total mobilized and from 339,000 to 177,000 for the total killed. Until a thorough study will be made on this topic (not just for Romania as I'm sure many other countries have these problems as well), we can never be certain.

Point two, regardless of whatever number of casualties, these had little impact on the overall morale of the troops and have nothing to do with the Hungarian-Romanian war as you are trying to imply. Alin2808 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The WW1 era general infrastructure of Romania and industrialization level, economic development were similar to the 1850s-1860s era Hungarian. So no wonder that Romania collapsed so quickly during WW1. Other topic: Do you really think, that the rapid occupation of Upper Hungary by Czechs and Southern Hungary by the Franco-Serb forces did not effected the Romanian-Hungarian war at all? Romanian soldiers occupied Transylvania without a battle during the liberal Károlyi Mihály regime. --Longsars (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"The WW1 era general infrastructure of Romania and industrialization level, economic development were similar to the 1850s-1860s era Hungarian"

-You did not provide any source, and this sounds more like a personal opinion, thus irrelevant without baking sources.

"Do you really think, that the rapid occupation of Upper Hungary by Czechs and Southern Hungary by the Franco-Serb forces did not effected the Romanian-Hungarian war at all?"

-Yes, they had their fronts, their battles. Romania had its own battles independent from those. Hungary did not take troops from fighting the Romanians to move to those fronts. And even more, little fighting happened there.

"Romanian soldiers occupied Transylvania without a battle during the liberal Károlyi Mihály regime."

-Certainly not, check: 1, 2, 3, also 4 and 5. Alternatively check the military actions of the Szekely Divison or the article about the demarcation lines in Transylvania Alin2808 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Romanian belonged to the Eurasiabn or Semi-Asian Orthodox civilization, which determined the backward social economic infrastructural development, read this Page and memorize the 16 points: https://orthodox-eurasian-civiliazation.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-asianization-of-greco-roman.html For economic differences see maddison project GDP/capita: https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2020?lang=en Also learn this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Hungary None of the Orthodox countries produced turbines generators turbo-generators, e-motors, transfomers, electric locomotives Trams, cars trucks tractors , neither gas and diesel ICE engines, neither light bulbs, radio-tubes X-ray tubes, neither diesel-electric submarines etc..

MEanwhile in pre-WW1 era Orthodox countries (incl. Romania) the vast majority of the population coul not read and write (illiteracy was shocking high)

" Romania had its own battles independent from those. " So according to your logic, the D-day did not effected the WW2 on Eastern front...

Neither of the emntioned "battles" were state supported or organized fight, just smaller local uprisings.--Longsars (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, bringing religion in a discussion that's not about religion and using some blog that uses a few sources at the beginning and then proceeds to spew its own narrative? And then talking about who is backward?

"None of the Orthodox countries produced turbines generators turbo-generators, e-motors, transfomers, electric locomotives Trams, cars trucks tractors , neither gas and diesel ICE engines, neither light bulbs, radio-tubes X-ray tubes, neither diesel-electric submarines etc."

You can't be serious. Wait, are you really serious about this? Not sure whether to laugh at this or to be disturbed by what some people can believe.

"So according to your logic, the D-day did not effected the WW2 on Eastern front"

Poor comparison. The Czech and Serbian fronts never had D-Day level reaching effects.

"Neither of the emntioned "battles" were state supported or organized fight, just smaller local uprisings"

So you're now insulting the Szekely Divion and its commanders by calling them some local rebels who did not organize their battles?

And with this you again took the discussion off-topic. Can you ever keep a discussion on-topic without straying too much? Alin2808 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, you did not even read the linked article. https://orthodox-eurasian-civiliazation.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-asianization-of-greco-roman.html "his is not an article about the theology or religions, but stricly about the development of civilizations which were crystallized around them during the second millenium) "

Again, pre-WW1 Orthodox countries did not produced ICE engines neither any type of electric equipments in that era, they had to import them from the countries of the Western civilization.

"The Czech and Serbian fronts never had D-Day level reaching effects." Not as a global impact, but as a local proportional small call ratio it is a good analogy. Longsars (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I read the article, not being about directly about religion yet still using terms like "Orthodox civilization" or "Orthodox church". And once again, besides the first cited sources, the rest of it is nothing more than the personal assessments of the author.

"Again, pre-WW1 Orthodox countries did not produced ICE engines neither any type of electric equipments in that era, they had to import them from the countries of the Western civilization."

Stop bringing this "civilization" into production when it has nothing to do with it. And how is not producing engines and electric equipment relevant to this discussion?

"Not as a global impact, but as a local proportional small call ratio it is a good analogy."

No, it is not. The Hungarians never diverted substantial resources from the Romanian front to these fronts. Alin2808 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Romania was not able to produce neither machineguns neither cannons. As a total agricultural country, it relied on imports and foreign supports. Orthodox civilization is a well known and widely used term for historians social scientists since the 19th century, to depict the huge societal infrastructural cultural infrastructural and economic differences in development, and they use it to compare comparison with Western civiliaztion (Catholic-Protestant Western Chrisianity).

See the high number of hits on the Google Book searcher for the exact term : "Orthodox civilization" https://www.google.com/search?q=%22orthodox%2Bcivilization%22&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01hXaLg9qUAmFiTA13kfmT7qZzjsQ%3A1612720829206&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV2pWhrdjuAhWww4sKHdGhBrYQ_AUoAXoECCUQCw&biw=1988&bih=2085

Never diverted against Czechoslovakia ? Are you serious? --Longsars (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Romania was not able to produce neither machineguns neither cannons. As a total agricultural country, it relied on imports and foreign supports."

-Sure, Romania wasn't an industrial powerhouse, yet it had a limited production of cannons (see for example) and ammunition, besides other things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_military_equipment_of_World_War_I

"See the high number of Google Book searcher for the exact term"

-And as I see it, most of those use the term either when talking about religion or when talking about Russia.

"Never diverted against Czechoslovakia ? Are you serious?"

-The above mentioned Szekler Divion remained deployed on the Romanian front. And no, Hungary did not divert significant resources from the Romanian front to Czechosovakia. To answer your other point about Hungary loosing population and industry to the Serbs, French and Czechs: the main industry and population centers in Hungary were located around Budapest and in western Hungary, wouldn't you agree? Alin2808 (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

So Romania was able to produce a limited number cannon which was on 19th century technical level. Fantastic.

No, check again. Those were not "19th century technical level".

Of course most spurces speak about Russian Empire, because it became the most important country in Orthodox civilization, due to the landmass and population.

But have you thought that not all countries in the 'Orthodox world' were the same as Russia?

Prime example of wishfull thinking: "And no, Hungary did not divert significant resources from the Romanian front to Czechoslovakia."

As in, Hungary did not divert troops from the Romanian front to fight the Czechs (unless you have a source for that).

Hungary has fought with bigger army against Czechoslovak armies, and that time the Hungarian army had real professional military officers instead of communist (poltical) commissar officers. Huge difference. Longsars (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, so as I read it from the article, the Hungarian army was demoralized (many professionals and veterans resigned) after the formation of the Slovak Soviet Republic on 16 June 1919. Romania certainly wasn't at war with Hungary only from then on. By the way, while on the topic of resignation of professional commanders, can you provide better sources for the article? Particularly on Aurél Stromfeld, as from the Hungarian article it seems that he resigned on 3 July but on the Hungarian-Romanian War article it's implied that he resigned in June. Alin2808 (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Verdun

See note on talk page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

NPA

You need to read wp:npa, as you can't dismiss another editor's opinions based on their level of education (ther is no policy saying you have to have a minimum level of education to edit here, and such arguments are a distraction (and may be wp:disruptive if used too often), and wp:talk as talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not discuss users qualifications. Stop now. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages

MAybe I was not clear, read wp:talk. An articles talk page is not about educating me, it is about discussing improving the article. Stop personalising disputes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Longsars! Your additions to Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Dianna! What do you think exactly? As far as I know, the open letters of politicians have no copy rights. And I provided text that the politician said that.--Longsars (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Uncivil comment (WP:PA) on Talk:Huns

Hello, I'm KeithTyler. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Huns that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Stubes99 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)