Hi Driverofknowledge! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:42, Friday, February 7, 2020 ( UTC)

my article (Battle of Montese)needs the Combat Info,but i dont know how to make the Combat Info Part,if u know,could you translate the Combat Info from the Portuguese Wikipedia? 189.35.35.204 ( talk) 16:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I can try and help you write me a list of what you meed help with. Just please know what you copying as one of the sources was to a food page, I am going to post to your main account. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 17:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

ok now i can end the Battle Info i know what to do now thx man,u rlly helped

No problem! I added a picture if you want to bring over more pages, let me help so we don't end up putting a food source has a source for a battle. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 21:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I am following the “NPOV” editing guideline as used by the other editors on the client states. OyMosby ( talk) 14:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Ok then Driverofknowledge ( talk) 15:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks! OyMosby ( talk) 15:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I don’t understand, they were all puppet states. Why is Croatia specifically singled out? Slovak Republic and Nedic’s Regime were puppets as well. OyMosby ( talk) 15:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean. Just was trying to match what the other page said but, I will revert myself after you explained it thanks for giving me some input on my edit. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 15:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

No worries. It’s nice to receive pleasant replies instead of passive-agressive ones. Sorry if I came across stern. It’s been frustrating dealing with Balkan related edits lately. People selectively editing articles to present a certain image. I’m honestly close to giving up on Wikipedia. Are you an admin? OyMosby ( talk) 15:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

No I am not maybe one day. But hope you don't give up on it you seem like a nice person. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 15:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the encouraging words. Thank you and you too. OyMosby ( talk) 15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Can we chat really quick about my warnings? please

Thank you for helping revert vandalism on List of shopping malls in the Philippines! Stickymatch 19:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Yum I love strawberries ! Driverofknowledge ( talk) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. -- Killarnee ( T• 1• 2) 16:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the tip!

Hello, just sharing since you interacted with this IP on Puerto Rico Covid19 article. User likely needs some mentoring. Yug (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I just saw them do that on that page. That is why I interacted with them. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 22:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

It seems confirmed by a CheckUser clerk, a warning was posted on both accounts so I read it as they are the same same IP/user. I made 3 reverts, you made one, they(=he or she) made 3 reverts. I cannot do more due to 3RR but their last push does need review. I will contact the user to soften things and suggest mentoring. Yug (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Yug Its good you are trying to help somebody, that's very nice of you! Driverofknowledge ( talk) 20:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your barnstar for my changes to this article; so glad to have helped. Also, thank you for your contributions to Viktor Suvorov! I'm learning a lot - came across a review of his first book, The Liberators, in Air University Review, published by the US Air Force (probably by people associated with the Air Force Academy). Came across a review of later work in Military Review, also US (actually he was just a footnote, but am looking for more). Parkwells ( talk) 23:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I saw the page we first worked on so just wanted to add some historians from Germany to that page that talk about this. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 00:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Driverofknowledge -- I made the edit to revert the page ImeIme Umana back to a prior version, since the user Umana_stolemoney has been repeatedly vandalizing that page by posting racist and factually incorrect statements on that page. As thier username suggests, that account is run by a person who has a specific grudge against another person who shares the last name Umana. If possible, that user should be banned from Wikipedia.

Ok Thanks for telling me you are right, I looked it over. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 22:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I am new to this all but can not understand how correcting the link to the actual movie, rather then to a blank screen - is un constructive. Perhaps you can explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2200:2320:E575:74A7:3C24:AC05 ( talk) 00:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I saw some else undo the other edit you did. but I get what your saying. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 00:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Still confused, I do not understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:2200:2320:E575:74A7:3C24:AC05 ( talk) 00:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I was just making sure the link was to the movie, like it was before your edit and not some porn site. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 00:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear Driverofknowledge, thank you for undoing the vandalism-it is nice to have somebody appreciate my work on that article-I kept getting feedback on my effort to do "history from below", so it is very nice to have somebody notice my work. There still much I would like to do-I would ultimately bring in some material on the home front and how ordinary people saw the war. Thank you for your good work on the Andreas Hillgruber article-cutting out properly sourced information that was critical of Hillgruber's thesis really seems like grotesque POV-pushing. I try to be neutral and presented Hillgruber's thesis in a manner that I feel is balanced and fair, but the article should make it clear that most historians reject his thesis about the need to "identify" with the Werhmacht's last stand on the Eastern Front in 1945. There is a circular quality to Hillgruber's thesis-the Soviet Communists were just as evil as the German Nazis, therefore because the Nazis were fighting the Communists, the right and moral thing for a German to do was to fight as hard as possible for the Nazis. The way the article had been edited makes it read like the most historians accepted Hillgruber's thesis, which is wrong. Hillgruber claimed that the Wehrmacht officers who stayed loyal to Hitler in 1944 made the right moral choice because to overthrow Hitler would had disorganized the war effort and hence allowed Red Army into Germany-if most historians accepted that, then there are quite articles around here that needed to be rewritten to explain the majority of the Wehrmacht officers who stayed loyal to Hitler made the morally right choice over the minority who did not.

Also, thank you for your good work on Viktor Suvorov article-he is a charlatan and the article should say that. Without trying to sound too pompous here, Suvorov breaks the elementary rules of the historians' craft, such you cannot always interpret a nation's diplomatic policy via its military plans. A nation with an offensive diplomatic policy by definition has an offensive military policy, but the mere existence of an offensive military policy does not automatically prove the existence of an offensive diplomatic policy. Up to 1931, the United States had a plan for a war with the British Empire code-named War Plan Red. War Plan Red called in the event of a war with the British empire for the United States to immediately invade and occupy Canada. Using Suvorov's twisted logic, the mere existence of War Plan Red must mean the United States was planing to conquer Canada in the 1920s, when in fact all it proves was that there was a plan for invading Canada. Congress had passed a law saying the U.S. Army and U.S Navy had to annually prepare a joint plan for wars with the major powers, hence the existence of war plan Red, even through the possibility of a war with the British empire was considered unlikely. If you want to know what American policy was towards Canada and Britain, you should look at the State Department's records, not War Plan Red. Suvorov as a former GRU officer writing about history seems curiously unaware that the Red Army had a preference for offensive operations over defensive operations. Furthermore, after the Yezhovshchina, there were almost no Red Army officers who were willing to suggest the Red Army would not stop the Wehrmacht at the frontiers as Stalin said it would, through almost everybody in the Red Army officer corps thought that was unlikely. The fact that Marshal Tukhachevsky and the other Red Army marshals had been shot for treason for considering the possibility in their war plans that the Wehrmacht might penetrate deep into the Soviet Union understandably made other officers unwilling to say the same. The Soviet planning for a war with Germany after 1938 was based on Stalin's fantasy in the event of a German attack, the Wehrmacht would be stopped right at the frontiers and accordingly the Red Army would then take the offensive against the enemy. Suvorov has taken all this entirely out of context to make this absurd claim that Hitler had it right and the Soviet Union was planning to attack the Reich in July 1941. The Soviet Union and Poland used different railroad gauges; in the part of Poland annexed to the Soviet Union in 1939, the plan called for converting the railroad gauges to the Soviet gauge by 1946. The different railroad gauges made a Soviet offensive against Germany in 1941 logistically impossible-if Suvorov is right, then the railroad gauges should been converted by no later than the spring of 1941.

Psychologically speaking, it always easier to justify extreme violence if you claim to be acting defensively. Hence during all of Operation Barbarossa, Nazi propaganda hammered in that message that the "Asiatic hordes" as the Red Army was always referred to in the Reich were about to be unleashed in July 1941 to destroy "European civilization", but fortunately Hitler saw what was coming and preemptively invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Historians have come to accept that you cannot divide history into boxes with Hitler's foreign policy in one box and the genocidal policy in the other-the two are part and parcel of the same thinking. Hitler and the other Nazi leaders really believed the Soviet Union was run by the Jews, and hence Hitler's uncompromisingly statements that Operation Barbarossa was to use his own words be a "war of extermination" to be fought without mercy or pity. It is striking if you read German documents dealing with Operation Barbarossa how all the violence and cruelty is always justified under the grounds the other side was planning to do the same to us. This is a self-justifying rationalization, but it is psychologically necessary since how you do you justify to yourself that killing children and infants is OK other than to claim the other side was allegedly planning to kill your children and infants. What is really striking is that all the people who have accepted Suvorov's theories are all trying to rehabilitate Hitler, at least on the Eastern Front, saying Barbarossa was a really a noble war to protect "European civilization" from the "Asiatic hordes" and all of cruelty of Barbarossa was something the peoples of the Soviet Union brought down on themselves. Joachim Hoffmann's 1987 book Stalin's War of Extermination, which uses Suvorov a lot as a source, makes this point quite explicitly. All this business of portraying Barbarossa as a preemptive war is very sinister with the message that all extreme cruelty of the "war of extermination" was a justified, if extreme response to what the other side was allegedly planning to do. You have done some good work in keeping the more noxious elements at bay here.

I don't know about you, but I have been called a "Stalinist" for pointing this out, which is a disgusting slur. I have never tried to rehabilitate Stalin's tyranny, but merely pointed out that however oppressive the East German state was, the Soviets did not deport the entire population of East Germany to "reservations" in Siberia to make way for millions of Russian colonists. Had Germany won the Second World War, hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe were going to be cleared out and sent to "reservations" in Siberia to make way for millions of German colonists while millions of others, most notably the Jews were going to be exterminated. My point is scholarly, not political-the Communist regimes in eastern Europe were oppressive and evil, but to say there was no differences between Nazi polices and Communist policies in eastern Europe is to willfully ignore some very big differences. Hitler said that after he finished conquering the Soviet Union, all of the Russians who count to over 100 were to be killed as he reckoned that these were the more intelligent Russians and he wanted reduce the Russians down to slaves incapable of any sort of intelligent thought. However bad East Germany was, there was no effort at all between 1949-1989 to wipe out all of the more intelligent East Germans. On the contrary, the East German regime went out of its way to honor intellectuals, artists, scientists, engineers, etc. Likewise, had Germany won the war, the entire population of Poland was to be cleared out to make way for German colonists; however bad the Communist regime in Poland was, nobody ever tried to expel the entire population of Poland to make way for Russian colonists. What Stalin wanted were governments subservient to the Soviet Union; Hitler by contrast quite consciously took the treatment of the Indians of North America together with the rule of the Raj in India as his models (he had confused notions about the Raj-all he seemed to know was that the British had committed atrocities in 19th century India). I will admit that I have been remiss here, but I don't this like name-calling and having others call me a "Stalinist" does anger me; so it is better to cool it, which is why you deserve much praise here for standing up to the bad elements here.  

What possessed Suvorov to ally himself with these people is an interesting question, but it is common for Soviet defectors to try to stay at the center of attention by "remembering" new and exciting revelations as time goes by and people lose interest in them. Anatoliy Golitsyn was a KGB officer who for the first couple of years after his defection in 1961 provided accurate information about the KGB. Golitsyn was a KBG major and he only knew so much. After a few years his information started getting dated, and at which point Golitsyn started "remembering" very bizarre things like the Sino-Soviet split was really just an act and that Harold Wilson, Willy Brandt, Pierre Trudeau and Lech Wałęsa were all KGB agents. This was obviously a bid for attention from a man who liked being the center of attention-what is worrying is other people started taking seriously what Golitysn had to say. Ion Mihai Pacepa, a Romanian intelligence officer who defected in 1978 has been making increasingly fanciful claims about what he "remembers", for an instance claiming in 2007 that it was the KGB who assassinated Kennedy, something that he did not mention when he defected in 1978 or for some time afterward. When Suvorov defected in 1978, he said nothing about having information about what happened in 1941. He only "remembered" that in the 1980s. He claims to have seen secret files in Moscow in the 1970s, which nobody else has ever seen or been able to find, which is something that should set off alarm bells in historians. Golitsyn, Pacepa and Suvorov may had once provided accurate information, but all of them have turned into charlatans, writing books full of dubious, explosive "new" information that they somehow forgot to mention when they defected.

I would like to congratulate you for sticking up for accuracy and decency around here. You have done really good work and thank you so much! Please accept my apologies here for going on some length-it is really frustrating that some people around here cannot see reason, and it is so wonderful to have meet somebody else around here who can see reason. Thank so much for your kindness and help, which is much appreciated here. I hope all is well with you and thank you again for your decency and help. Best wishes and cheers!-- A.S. Brown ( talk) 01:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

A.S. Brown This really made my day think you =) Driverofknowledge ( talk) 02:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)       reply

Dear Driverofknowledge, thank you so much for the barnstar, which is very much appreciated here! Sorry for going like that; it hurts when others call me a "Stalinist POV-pusher", which is especially painful because my Russian ancestors left Russia after 1917 to get away from the Communists. All murder is terrible, but not all murderers are alike, which is why the law distinguishes between second degree "hot" murders committed in the heat of the moment vs. first degree "cold" murders committed as a result of icy calculation. I think Communism is evil, but the argument the Communist regimes were evil in precisely the same way as the Nazis really distorts history. The vast majority of Stalin's victims were his own people, and Soviet terror was random-quotas were assigned that this many "enemies of the people" needed to be "liquidated" in this particular area, leading to arbitrary arrests of people selected at random to make the quota. Nobody was safe-even Marshal Tukhachevsky, the Hero of the Soviet Union, was shot. By contrast, the Nazi regime tended to leave ordinary Germans alone to live their lives as they pleased, and Nazi violence was mostly directed at people considered to be "outsiders" in Germany-Jews, the Romany, the physically disabled, "Marxists", the mentally ill, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, the "asocial" (a broad category covering people who were just eccentric to drug addicts to petty criminals), etc. Moreover, the Nazi regime caused the deaths of 12 million people in the years' 1939-1945, and the vast majority of these people were not German. Mostly it was people in Eastern Europe, above the Jews, who suffered the bulk of Nazi violence. Contrary to what most people think Nazi Germany was not a closed nation-any German who wanted to take a vacation abroad with his family was free to do so. What is really striking about the Nazi era is almost all of those Germans who took vacations abroad were happy to go back to the Third Reich-not many defected. This is the complete opposite of the situation with the Soviet Union and most of the Eastern European Communist regimes who did not let their people take vacations abroad of the fear that they would not return. The one exception was Tito, who did let his people go abroad to work and many chose to go to back to Yugoslavia after working in the West for a couple of years. Repression in Yugoslavia was mostly directed to against the Albanian minority who made up 1 million of Yugoslavia's 22 million people, but 50% of the political prisoners were ethnic Albanians.      

I believe in NPOV rule, but there are interpretations of history which are correct and interpretations which are incorrect. I think Surorov was just making a bid for attention and wanted to sell another book by saying he had starling new information about WWII. He already published a book about his career in the GRU, so he really didn't have anything new to say that might interest a publisher so he just make up this story about Hitler having it right with Operation Barbarossa being a "preventative war". But the uses that Icebreaker and its sequels have been put to have been monstrous. In a way, this is actually worse than Holocaust denial because it essentially justifies the Holocaust. A German philosopher, Ernst Nolte, started the Historikerstreit of 1986-87 with his thesis that Holocaust was an extreme, but understandable, indeed a very "rational" to use Nolte's words response to Hitler's fears of the Soviet Union. Nolte like the other writers of his ilk have made a lot of use of Surorov as a source. There seems to be a lot of confusion around here about what the Historikerstreit was all about-the debate was not over the moral equivalence of Hitler and Stalin as many people seem to think, but over Nolte's very dubious claims that Hitler was somehow forced against his will to exterminate the Jews out of fear of what Stalin was allegedly going to do to the Germans. Many people get their information from around here, and so if somebody comes to Surorov's article and reads that maybe there is something to his thesis, it does a real disservice to history. That is especially if one considers the monstrous uses that the Surorov Icebreaker thesis has been put to. Most people are not going to dig up the proper books by historians which will you that Surorov's books are nonsense. So I really you deserve credit on that, because you really done a good service here. You stopped the spread of nonsense, and for that you have my most sincere thanks and admiration. This argument about Operation Barbarossa as a preventive war is not only wrong, but it is egregiously offensive as it portrays the "war of extermination" as something forced on its perpetrators. I should be awarding a Barnstar because you struck down a dragon here. Thank you again for your kindness here-it is really nice to talk to someone both intelligent and kind around here. I've very touched that I helped to give you a good day-I hope you have a wonderful tomorrow and thank you for your barnstar! Best wishes and cheers!-- A.S. Brown ( talk) 06:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

A.S. Brown And I hope you have a great day to ! Driverofknowledge ( talk) 12:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)       reply

Thank you again! Best wishes and cheeers!-- A.S. Brown ( talk) 01:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC) reply

You said you verified the statement that the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation got their number from The Black Book of Communism here:

https://fdocuments.net/reader/full/what-future-for-the-future-reflections-on-the-black-book-of-communism

However reading that.....I see no such statement. Could you kindly advise me as to it's location? Regards. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 01:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Rja13ww33 I verified this statement I fixed it to match with the source.

Fair enough (as it stands now). But we don't know (for sure) that is where the Foundation got their number from. (Although I don't doubt much that they did.) Rja13ww33 ( talk) 01:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The 100 million victim number is taken from the controversial Black Book of Communism, often criticized for inflating numbers to reach the 100 million mark. on page 137 of the source. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 01:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I see no such statement in 'The Black Book of Communism' itself or the link you cited (given above; on p.137 of either source). Rja13ww33 ( talk) 01:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Rja13ww33 yes they did hold on let me get source. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 01:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Rja13ww33 look under end notes. Panné, Jean-Louis, et al. “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/sb/chinese-communist-party-world-health-organization-culpability-in-coronavirus-pandemic

Rja13ww33 I am not a communist apologist. Even the Anti-Defamation League has a Controversies part for the page /info/en/?search=Anti-Defamation_League#Controversies Driverofknowledge ( talk) 01:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

That's more to do with the pandemic than their original source.....but I suppose that is close enough. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 01:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Ok then glad we could figure this out. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 01:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

If an edition is objected to you should not reinstate it until you have agreement. This is done on the articles talk page. Please follow policy. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Also we are both in danger of edit warring. So stop reverting and lets talk. I have suggested a wp:compromise, why is that not good enough? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Slatersteven I thought it seemed better. I was not trying to start a edit war with you, can I put it back to the last edit you did for the wp:compromise? Driverofknowledge ( talk) 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I will discuss any edits only on the articles talk page, it makes it easier for others to follow. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I suggest you read wp:consensus very carefully. If you continue to refuse to accept the figures form an RS I will assume this is wp:tenditious and report it. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Slatersteven I wasn't trying to go against consensus. I was just giving a suggestion, since the other source gives a range to why not use both. I'm sorry if I came off like I was. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

OK. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Dear Driverofknowledge, Russia Against Napoleon by Dominic Lieven is the best source for campaigns that inspired War and Peace-it is like the only book in English that uses Russian primary sources, and it also highlights the overlooked Russian role in the campaigns of 1813-1814. Moscow 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March by Adam Zamoyski is short on the French side of things, but unfortunately Zamoyski is a historian of Polish descent with a mad, rabid hatred of everything Russian. At times his book reads like an account written by really, really embittered French veteran as he explains the Russians were outclassed by the French at everything, but somehow they just won through sheer bad luck on the part of the French. Georges Lefebvre's biography of Napoleon is a little dated, but very through and is still regarded as one of the best. Napoleon and His Marshals by A.G. Macdonell is a little old, but it is a classic and is still being republished, which is not bad for a book first published in 1934.  Napoleon's army, 1790-1815 by Lucien Rousselot is a good summary, through it is something of a picture book. For Napoleon's battles, Blundering to Glory by Owen Connelly is a bit revisionist, but it serves to rebut a lot of myths. How Far From Austerlitz? by Alistair Horne is your best summary by one of the world's best historians on French history. The books by Gregory Fremont-Barnes and Todd for Osprey are short, but about 100 pages and covered all of the essentials-for an intro, they OK. Their bibliographies are very helpful for more detailed reading.

David Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon is a good study, through he admires Napoleon too much. Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty, and the Battle of Trafalgar by Adam Nicolson is not just about the Battle of Trafalgar is not just about the Battle of Trafalgar-it is a really wonderful social history about naval life and ideals of heroism in the Napoleonic era. Nicolson is a British, so predictably he is stronger on the British side of things, but his book looks at subjects like ideals of masculinity and heroism in the Napoleonic era in a manner that is interesting that goes well beyond the Battle of Trafalgar like exploring how a character from Mr. Darcy reflected Romantic era values. For the Peninsular War, your best source is The Spanish Ulcer by David Gates and Charles J. Esdaile's Peninsular War: A New History-he is like the only historian in English who looks at the Spanish and Portuguese role. Anything by Esdailie is really good. The Emperor's last victory : Napoleon and the battle of Wagram and Napoleon's Great Adversaries: The Archduke Charles and Austrian Army, by Gunther E. Rothenberg is probably your best account for the 1809 campaign. Rothenberg is very sound on the Austrian side of things. Peter Hofschröer is very strong on the Prussian side of things, through his book Waterloo The German Victory as it title indicates downplays the British role.

Baron Colmar von der Goltz was a crazed Prussian militarist and a very brutal Social Darwinist who thought that war was necessary to kill off the weak in order to ensure the survival of the fittest, hence his slogan "Perpetual peace is perpetual death!" When he was not penning Social Darwinist tracts about the necessity of Germany to go to war to kill off the weak, he was a well regarded military historian, and his book Jena to Eylau: The Disgrace and Redemption of the Old-Prussian Army is still regarded as a classic. However, to read it, you will to get pass his ugly views about how it is good that so many people get killed in wars because they were the genetically weak and deserved to die. For the Battle of Waterloo, your best source the book by Jeremy Black. Andrew Roberts does a lot of the subject, through like all of his books he has an infuriatingly smug Anglo-centric "Britain is the best" perspective that distorts everything-his books should be used with a great deal of caution. I just writing all of the top of mind, and I probably get you a more detailed list soon. I hope all is well with you, and wish you the best. Sorry for not writing more-my memory is failing me as it is been awhile since I done some work on the Napoleonic wars. Best wishes and cheers!-- A.S. Brown ( talk) 04:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)    reply

A.S. Brown All is well. I came across this page /info/en/?search=Napoleonic_Wars_casualties and, it looks like It needs some serious work. Do you think maybe you help with the editing I partially started with it checking the sources the best I can. Also thanks for the book names! Driverofknowledge ( talk) 04:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Good to hear all is well. Your're right-that page does need some work. Zamoyski is ok as a source, but citing Russian losses, I prefer Lieven Unfortunately, the university libraries where I normally go to some good RS are closed at present. Clodfelter, which the article does cite, is usually your best source on losses in war, but I don't have access to his book. I don't much have here in my private library, other than the Encyclopedia Britannia, which is from 1969. It counts as a RS, but somebody might object to using a book that is 51 years old. I'll see what I can find-through this accused CORVID-19 makes things difficult. Best wishes and cheers!-- A.S. Brown ( talk) 04:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)  reply

A.S. Brown I think no one will object to it. Cite 76 (Asa Briggs, The Making of Modern England 1783–1867: The Age of Improvement (1959) /info/en/?search=Napoleonic_Wars#Citations Driverofknowledge ( talk) 04:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for putting that out. I'm afraid my trusty and beloved Encyclopedia Britannia volume set from 1969 has let us down. The entry on the Napoleonic wars is very through, running to a good 20 pages, but it does not give overall losses for the entire wars. It mentions losses from individual battles and campaigns at times, saying that the Grande Armee lost 100, 000 men killed in action in Russia in 1812, of which 75, 000 were French while the giving the figure of 100, 000 Russians being killed in action. But unfortunately, it doesn't give overall figures-I'll do some digging to see what I can find. If you can read French, the Encyclopedia Britannia article had a very through bibliography of French books, mostly published in the early 20th century. I don't if you're interested in that or not. I hope all is well. Best wishes and cheers!-- A.S. Brown ( talk) 05:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IP personal attacks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

There is now a clear WP:EDITWAR over the Ufology article lead. Breaches of WP:3RR are flagrant. If you carry on with it I shall take you to WP:ANI/EW.

— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I only made one edit to that page? But ok thanks for telling me. Driverofknowledge ( talk) 13:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Appreciate the baklva :) It is worded a little weirdly, maybe it would be better to change it to something like "the term has been used in the Soviet Union and several post-Soviet republics, including Russia" but I would need to double check that it is used in multiple countries. I believe at least Belarus and probably Kazakhstan also use the term along with Russia, or at least they did recently. Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 04:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Zloyvolsheb The wording threw me off. That's why I was bit defensive with it, thanks for explaining if they do I support you adding the new text! Driverofknowledge ( talk) 04:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at USS Nimitz UFO incident shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this will try talk about this with them Driverofknowledge ( talk) 02:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I would suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page. – dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

There is one going on kind of /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident Driverofknowledge ( talk) 02:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm certainly willing to help. Just was what the issue? Thank you for your time. I hope all is well. Best wishes!-- A.S. Brown ( talk) 04:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm made some changes, which I hope help. If it does not, let me know and I'll get back to work on it. Just aside, you may want to mention that the disgusting comment from General Ion Antonescu to his soldiers and gendarmes operating in Bessarabia and eastern Bukovina in June 1941 that if they "wanted to have some fun with the Jewish women", he was completely OK with that. "Have some fun" was an euphemism for rape, which Antonescu justified at a cabinet meeting (!) under the grounds since the Jewish women living in Bessarabia and eastern Bukovina were all going to be exterminated anyhow that it didn't matter if his men had "some fun" first. I know that is Romania, but Antonescu's remark might had made him unique in that here was a head of government sanctioning rape as state policy. The Romanian role in Operation Barbarossa has been rather overlooked, but as 1961, Raul Hilberg in his seminal book The Destruction of the Jews of Europe noted that except for Germany, no other country did as much to end Jewish life as it did Romania. Best wishes and cheers!-- A.S. Brown ( talk) 04:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ufology sprawling edit war. --— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I hope I helped and all is well. If you want to talk, let me know. Best wishes.-- A.S. Brown ( talk) 22:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply