Talk:Battle of Kostiuchnówka

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  The survey will end on April 30.
* Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
* If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
* Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? 
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.  Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: Regarding  and . Sources have been added, and the paintings (at least two of them) are mentioned in the body, as the presence of Pilsudski in that battle has inspired the two authors. I think showing an example of such a painting is justified. That said, I'd support replacing the Garwatowski painting with Gottlieb one, as it would be in PD (he died in 1934). Unfortunately, I cannot find any copy online - once somebody finds it, please replace it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From an editor of your experience, I have difficulties reconciling your conduct with an assumption of good faith. You must know that if you'd accept a free alternative as a replacement then the non-free alternative is ipso facto excluded. It also cannot be so hard to grasp that a mere passing mention of the existence of a painting cannot possibly be grounds for a need for visual illustration; only a substantial and sourced critical discussion could. You have a persistent, years-long history of pushing the boundaries on non-free images. This is no longer a harmless failure at understanding our policies; it's a deliberate refusal to understand them. Cut it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I resent your bad faithed tone. No matter how experienced an editor is, it is impossible to understand the intricacies of all Wikipedia policies, and I certainly do not claim to have a deep one of fair use images. I appreciate your explanation above, but it could've been done without personal attacks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed fair use rationale for [[:File:Pilsudski in Kostiuchnówka's trenches.jpg]] 

message: Kostiuchnówka is a Polish name of a multinational place.Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is pure Polish propaganda. The forces ranged against the Russian Empire were Austro-Hungarian and German. The various divisions which made up those armies are immaterial. 86.174.147.112 (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kostiuchnówka 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Kostiuchnówka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113225051/http://www.pilsudski.org:80/English/Gallery/Gallery.htm to http://www.pilsudski.org/English/Gallery/Gallery.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204519/http://www.mon.gov.pl/artykul_wiecej.php?lang=1&idartykul=2056 to http://www.mon.gov.pl/artykul_wiecej.php?lang=1&idartykul=2056
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007091627/http://www.magwil.lt/archiwum/2003/mww3/kov13.htm to http://www.magwil.lt/archiwum/2003/mww3/kov13.htm
*Added  tag to http://vwww.osen.pl/biblioteka-historyczna/recenzje/1064-kostiuchnowka1916najwiekszapolskabitwaiwojnyswiatowej.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1916 – First World War: Russian troops won a victory in the Battle of Kostiuchnówka, with the Polish Legions playing a key role on the Austro-Hungarian side.
vs 
Date
July 4–6, 1916
Location
Kostiuchnówka (Kostyukhnivka)
51°20′35″N 25°45′35″E
Result
Indecisive
Which is it? Both are from wikipedia. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:DE9:EAA:F624:F71C (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki main says Russians won victory but the article says indecisive.  

message: @Dushnilkin you have been constantly changing the result to a Russian victory,  how about it stays on the klong standing version so on Inconclusive. I think that the overall result should go on the aftermath section. Olek Novy (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Russians completed their task and the legion retreated, this cannot be indicated as an "indecisive result", I think you just need to indicate: "Russia's victory, slowing down the Brusilov offensive" Dushnilkin (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a term like "Strategic Retreat" and plus its mentioned over here: that The resistance of the legion units prevented the Russians from encircling the Austro-Hungarian formations in the Styr bend. the battle was Inconclusive. Olek Novy (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not mean their victory. If in your opinion to prevent encirclement and surrender the position = indecisive, then indicate on the page of the great retreat of 1915 that this is not a victory of the central powers, but an indecisive result Dushnilkin (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: the great retreat was followed with defeats of the Russian army and plus the great retreat compared to this is a military campaign Olek Novy (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Russians prevented the encirclement, according to your logic, this is an indecisive result. In addition, I pointed out two sources for the victory of the Russians, one of which is the memoirs of Ludendorff. He claims that this offensive in the Styr bend was a complete success for the Russians. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I indicated all the details in the end, including the prevention of encirclement, from the point of view of Wikipedia, tactical success and taking a position = victory of a certain side (at least if you rely on other articles) Dushnilkin (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: this is what Waingertner writes: From the point of view of the general operational situation on the Eastern Front and the local one in Volhynia, the most important thing was that, as a result of the fierce resistance put up by the Polish Legions, the Russians did not achieve the main objectives of the attack: the Polish and Austrian troops failed to surround and destroy them, and the losses incurred during fighting by the Russian troops and the fatigue of the Russian soldiers from the three days of fighting prevented them from continuing their rapid pursuit march. This is why the Russians did not quickly appear over Stochod, which had a high chance of being successful if they were forced on the march. At the same time, the German and Austro-Hungarian commands hastily brought new forces to the threatened section of the front, preventing the enemy from taking advantage of the fact that the legionary units had been pushed back. Olek Novy (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludendorff in his memoirs claimed that none of the commanders could even think about holding the front on the Stokhod River, I think the assessment of a combatant would be an authorityLudendorff in his memoirs claimed that none of the commanders could even think about holding the front on the Stokhod River, I think the assessment of a combatant would be more authoritative.(page 224) And the delay in the offensive during this period was caused by the grouping of the 3rd and 8th armies of Brusilov, he writes about it in his memoirs.(page 259) Dushnilkin (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: can you maybe send me his memoirs? Olek Novy (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only give you Brusilov's memoirs, since the link to the Ludendorff quote is found as a source in Alexey Oleinikov's book Dushnilkin (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: nothing like ths is said on page 259:  Olek Novy (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you give me your discord, then I will send you a photo from my publication where he directly writes that in the period from July 1 to July 15, the army was reorganized Dushnilkin (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this is the difference between the editions Dushnilkin (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I checked your link, you made a mistake, it's Ludendorff's memoirs, in this case it's on page 226 Dushnilkin (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It only says that the Austrians compelled to withdraw by July 7th which i already mentioned that the Russians could not take advantage of that. Over here: it mentions that the offensive was delayed and moreover here:  it says that the attack by Russian forces failed. Even if some Russian sources say that the battle was a Russian victory that would leave the result Disputed. Olek Novy (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You ignore the fact that the offensive stopped due to the reorganization of the 8th Army, which included the 46th corps, this battle had no effect on slowing down the offensive. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you send me a source where it says that the " offensive stopped due to the reorganization of the 8th Army" Olek Novy (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I pointed it out on the page, Brusilov wrote it in his memoirs Dushnilkin (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As i siad the offensive was stopped by the 8th army on July 15th while the battle ended on the 7th of Jully, and also since the battle has sources claiming that it was a Austrian victory while some call it a Russian victory then the result is disputed Olek Novy (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Or over here: where it mentions a "tactical victory" for Austro-Hungarian forces. Olek Novy (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How can this be a "tactical" victory if the Austro-Hungarian and German troops have completely retreated? This may only be a strategic success, but it is not caused by a battle, but by the reorganization of the Russian armies Dushnilkin (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result