I don't think there's anything preventing you from moving it there per se, but we probably can't formally transwiki it there because it's not a WMF project. Kirill14:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only experience I really have with making things part of the MoS is with WP:MILMOS; the process we followed for that is visible here, but I'm not sure if that'll be sufficient for your needs. You might want to ask someone more involved with MoS management, like SandyGeorgia. Cheers! Kirill13:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much indeed FayssalF. When you get the time, the translation of the southern zone, and more importantly, getting references for the whole thing, would be great. I realise that's a big project so I appreciate you offering to start it, at least. Best regards, Buckshot06(prof) 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your help in defusing this situation. I had a look at United States Marine Corps and Russian Ground Forces and Marine Corps looks good. The Italian Army article on the German wiki is better than you might think, as there is an article for every division and brigade mentioned the general OrBat: i.e. de:Luftbewegliche Brigade Friuli which is about the Friuli Air Assault Brigade. it is like with the Marines where we have created an article for each MEF, Division, Wing and Regiment. The problem is: very few Italian Army regiments have as much history as a Marine Corps Regiment. I'm working on that but all by myself - so no idea when this work will be done...
in the meantime I added the category you suggest to the OrBat article, put an introductory sentence at the beginning and a reference to the Italian homepage, where the entire current OrBat is presented.
About the 1984 OrBat: On March 1st, 1984 the Italian institute for disarmament, the development and peace (Istituto di ricerche per il disarmo, lo sviluppo e la pace (IRDISP)) in Rome (a think thank of the Radical party) published the entire Italian OrBat down to company level - this was justified for the radical party as on of its core demands was total disarmament of Europe, but as the data published was top secret... well the radical party went under in 1989 (its parliamentarians had stolen the data) and the IRDISP followed in 1990. But Radio Radicale has survived and so you can find the entire OrBat (a much more detailed one then the one at Italian Army) here and this link I added as a reference. --noclador (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Here is how I was able to assemble this information. First, I had access to names and figures of formations and unit numbers when I served in the MP Headquarters of the Egyptian Army between 1990-1991 in addition to that I was at several instances attending in a high tech operations room at the MP headquarters acting as translator for foreign military delegates during my service. In this room, there were maps with specific information of military headquarters, regions, formation distribution and many other detailed info about the divisions and brigades. Also I had substantial information gathered from numerous arabic military books written by retired military generals describing their memoirs during their service in the Egyptian Army, but it was my father's hobby to collect these information for statistical purposes for his own satisfaction when he was reading these books. I was able to use these notes in conjuction with what I was able to gather. Last but not least, there were and probably still are several montly and quarterly military magazines printed by different departments of the Ministry of the Defence in Egypt, available for the military, where I had access to them while still in Egypt. These too had some relevant statistical information. In essense it was an accumulation of multiple sources that I had wanted for a long time to complete to the best of my ability. If you have additional and newer information, please advise. Orthopraxia (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again thank you, The 2nd Infantry Division was transformed to the 7th Mechanized Division, All 5 Infantry Divisions that were in the Egyptian Army ORBAT till 1973 were transformed to Mechanized Divisions, only two Independent Infantry Brigades were left as is but of of course modernized. As for the magazines, I need to get in touch with someone in Egypt to get the names, I forgot the names. I have been in the US since 1992, and all had with me is my notes and my fathers. I will let you know as soon as I get some names. Orthopraxia (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I knew where the source book got its information, so I could add a date of service... also, I hope I don't come across as some kind of arrogant jackass... I hate having only 2 or 3 sentences for squadrons that served in world wars, but when that's all one has to go with...
Magus732 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the warm words. I am actually working on a far more complicated graphic, encompassing the entire IDF, and can already extract a number of smaller graphics from there, but I believe this is counter-productive at this point, as it will only slow down my work (I'm an eventualist). In any case, I have made a few non-App-6 military structure diagrams in the past, which can be seen at Military Police Corps (Israel) and Prison Four. -- Ynhockey(Talk)23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly ask you to undelete Definition of philosophy, which you have deleted on 30 November 2008. From what I remember, I have found the article valuable.
The reason you gave for the deletion of the article was:
WP:PROD, reason was 'No valuable content, wiktionary, philosophy and metaphilosophy, do or should cover all'.)
I cannot confirm this. The two mentioned articles—philosophy and metaphilosophy—do not cover the definition of philosophy well, unlike the deleted article. Maybe the article "metaphilosophy" should cover the definition, but as it currently stands, it does not. The definition of philosophy is not a topic for a dictionary, but rather a field full of disagreement, which requires longer treatment that a short dictionary definition allows. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Strategic Aerospace Wings, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just closed this AfD as it seems to have fallen through the cracks and there's not much point asking an uninvolved editor to do anything so totally uncontroversial. Merge away! Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your merger, which I think is changing the result of the AfD via another means. It's notable and verifiable and it should be it's own article. If you think there should be a merger, propose it on the talk page and see if consensus supports you. --Friejose (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I know you disagree with my revert edit, that's why I offered to discuss it further and let other editors than us two have their say. When you proposed the merger, it was on the page's AfD discussion, which is not the appropriate place to determine consensus for such a merger. If you have reasons for merging beyond the fact that the page is a short stub, I'd like to hear them on the page's talk page. I can they say my peace, and we'll see what other editors have to say. --Friejose (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -- I'm contacting you about your edit because I don't think it was the wisest thing to do. Yes, when you made the change it was a fairly uninformative stub (&, to be honest, I hate creating stubs that short). However, (1) the MoD is not simply a part of Ethiopia's armed forces -- it is the cabinet-level body which oversees & runs those forces; & (2) would you do the same thing if instead of the MoD for Ethiopia, this were the Department of Defense of the U.S.? Leaving stubs like this about important topics (& creating redlinks) helps to encourage readers of Wikipedia to become editors & contribute material we might not otherwise get. And having worked on Ethiopian topics off & on for a few years now, I can attest that there are people who contribute to some of the most unexpected Ethiopia-related articles out there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your edits at Military of Ethiopia page. The history section does not really need any more citations as the expanded sections have ample sources. It is obvious you haven't read the expanded pages before making your "edits". Please do not make any changes unless you have knowledge about the subject as that is vandalism. Thanks.
The 'FDRE Defense Industy' is a 40 page publication at a exhibition for products of the Ethiopian defense industry in May 2008[3]. (DHM1) 05:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I've completed the proofreading and revision of the article above, for which you made a contribution. Should you remain interested in the content of the article, please check it out and tell me on its talk page. Thanks, and regards. --Campelli (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I've completed the proofreading and revision of the article above, for which you made a contribution. Should you remain interested in the content of the article, please check it out and tell me on its talk page. Thanks, and regards. --Campelli (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The British and American armies don't have each and every division, regiment and brigade broken in sub-units down to company size units, with long lists of the equipment they use mentioned over and over as variants. It really isn't useful to the average Wikipedia user. Not to mention that all this information doesn't have any reliable source (I'm not saying Orthopraxia isn't a reliable person, but we doesn't constitute a source to Wikipedia). Then we have long lists of all the equipment and vehicles used by the army, and most of them are just the same vehicles repeated again and again as variants. I'm sorry to say this, but the article is extremely poor. There is no section addressing the army's history, it's training, nothing at all, zero.
Honestly, I think the average reader, once he opens the article, is going to be aghast at the endless lists, and will probably bolt instantaneously to any another article. When I first opened it, I was extremely dissapointed to tell the truth.
We should just mention units of division and perhaps brigade size at most, and mention the equipment used by the army in an organized fashion, and mention them once, not repeatedly as variants. Most importantly, we need sources which Wikipedia approves of. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am aware of the discussion between you and Orthopraxia. As far as I know, Muhammad Ali of Egypt of Egypt founded the modern Egyptian Army. Comparing the the Russian Army's list of equipment, it is quite modest compared to the list of equipment in the Egyptian Army's article. The reason is that vehicles are mentioned only once, as I have stressed. I dont know of any sources to add to the article unfortunately, though I can contribute somewhat to its history, though not at the moment, as I have some other priorities. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Icsunonove is persisting with personal attacks and inappropriate and snide comments, even through his block. Just letting you know in case you wish to take further action. Thanks, — neuro(talk)01:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many ethnic Poles volunteered to SS? What is your point? Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Almost any nation of the world collaborated with the Nazis. The problem is the ratio and reason. The paragraph about Poland is the longest one not because the Poles collaborated respectively but because of prejudices.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor's claims are very distorted. It is true that some Polish citizens, classified as Volksdeutsche by the Germans, were conscripted into service in the Wehrmacht. This is well documented in the west because many of these soldiers were taken prisoner and many again opted to serve in the Polish forces in the west. However, the article in question concerns collaboration, and for me at least, it is a very questionable idea that someone who is forced into military service is a collaborator. As is pointed out in Partisan Warfare by Nigel Thomas and Peter Abbott, there were no ethnically Polish units formed in the Wehrmacht or the SS. It did not happen precisely because the German attitude toward occupied Poland was so ferociously anti-Polish. The IP editor also downplayed the murder of some six million Polish citizens, almost evenly divided between Catholic and Jewish, and then went on to assert that many countries in Europe were relieved to have the Germans invade because it made the countries orderly. As to the quoted author Rikmonspoel, a survey of his literature paints him as an SS apologist. For example, one of his articles makes the brazen claim that the church at Oradour-sur-Glane, France, was set afire by the French resistance who supposedly did so to make the SS look bad. This claim is based on stories supposedly told by citizens of Oradour to an unnamed Bundeswehr officer who purportedly visited Oradour in the 1960's. This stuff is pure fantasy that is fodder for those who have adopted Hitler's soldiers as their Second World War heroes and who are prepared to believe any nonsense that attempts to put organisations like the SS in a positive light. In light of these observations, I have to classify the IP editor as neo-Nazi propagandist. 91.32.115.109 (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
91.32.115.109, Would you mind either designating a talk page I can respond to you at or e-mailing me, or maybe setting up a username? Right now I'm not sure whether you're the same as 91.32.94.5 or a different person. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I have set up a talk page based on IP address 91.32.115.109 -- just click on the talk link for it. I am the same editor whose IP was recorded as 91.32.94.5. Note that my IP address may change again when I log off and log on. 91.32.115.109 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I have enough information to write decent stubs on thousands of places in Russia, yet you have a knack for requesting those for which I have nothing more than location and jurisdiction :) I'll see what I can find, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:03, February 11, 2009 (UTC)
Could you add a reference to this article proving there is an airfield there? A citation was requested specifically on that sentence (which I inferred from the 11th Army article). Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:07, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't have any sources which cover the Egyptian Army other than a low-quality book on the Yom Kippur War, so I can't be of much help I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that some people were upset with my edits on the Keith Park article. What is the objection? There is no comment on the talk page. I have always been willing to compromise. In fact, I generally back down, if someone is really getting upset. It is best to try to explain your case first though. I really what to know what is the objection on Keith Park. Wallie (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have got me very very wrong. I did used to say NZ, and people were changing it to British. I then tried British Commonwealth as a compromise. I always thought allegiance was to the country. I was corrected by a few people and later realised it was to the service. As a New Zealander, then Keith Park could be in the RAF as a British or British Commonwealth allegiance, but never New Zealand (or so I was being told). Wallie (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tenmei has filed an ArbCom case against me and I have done a little research on Tenmei and noted you have interacted with this user. Can you help provide an opinion about him? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've noticed that you're a major contributor to article on NATO. I've recently helped to create a NATO WikiProject, and I'm here to shamelessly recruit you for it. Would you be so kind as to join us? Anyway, if you're too busy, that's fine, but we'd love to have you. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if you had access to the Army Quarterly and Defence Journal 1988 (p194), I'm tryign to find an article on Sir David Campbell, I've been knocking together something on him (current efforts here), but finding good sources has been difficult, but a Google book search brought this to my attention, but I'm struggling to find a copy. David Underdown (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for you. I asked User:Razzsic but he couldn't help and instead directed me to ask you on the matter. Rather than write my question again, here's the link to the question I posted on Razzsic's talk page: User talk:Razzsic#Largest tank battle.
OK, I went through it and made some corrections. I mostly paid attention to the geographic aspects; those should be fine now. As I understand this is a machine translation of the Russian text, there is still a lot of other (mostly copyediting) work left to do, but I trust you'll take care of that part. As always, if there's anything else I can do in terms of Russian geography, just whistle. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:47, May 8, 2009 (UTC)
Well, your draft said that the division is located in a closed settlement in Altai Krai, and since there is only one closed settlement in Altai Krai, it was a no-brainer—they also have a website, so it was easy to verify. Not to mention that the article in ru_wiki names it first thing in the lead, too :)
The reason you missed the name is probably because you relied on the machine translation a bit too much. "Sibirsky" in Russian means "Siberian" (cf. Siberian Federal District—Sibirsky federalny okrug), so instead of a very specific "closed settlement of 'Sibirsky'" the machine translation would have been fooled into producing a very generic "Siberian closed settlement", which, of course, is true overall, but not exactly true to the original :) Anyway, I'll add the task of making a dab to my to-do list—there are quite a few things by this name that could be disambiguated. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:44, May 11, 2009 (UTC)
Just like any other place in Russia, closed settlements have the right for local self-government, which is separate from the administrative aspects (the administrative aspects are handled via the federal government). The website deals primarily with the municipal aspects and does not divulge any classified information. One wouldn't expect the federal government to legislate how the residents of Sibirsky are to handle their, say, trash removal, would they? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:25, May 11, 2009 (UTC)
Category:Infantry regiments of the United States Army
Why do you insist on puting an extra zero in the sort values for this category? The leading zeroes are there only to keep the regiments in numeric order, and since there are no regiments numbered higher than 999, there is no need for a fourth digit. What you are doing is unneccesarily confusing. Rklear (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I saw, you had a mix of 2-, 3- and 4-digit codes, which is why things were out of order. I changed them all to 3-digit numbers and they were in order until you started changing them again. Rklear (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buckshot06; I think it is time to update the Ukrainian Ground Forces graphic. Today I read the 2008 White Paper of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence and it says that there were some structural changes within 2008:
specifically it says (on page 87) that the 3 Army Corps are now organized like this:
Army Corps
Armoured Brigade
Mechanized Brigade
Mechanized Brigade
Airborne Brigade
Artillery Brigade
directly subordinated units
Army Corps
Armoured Brigade
Mechanized Brigade
Mechanized Brigade
Airmobile Brigade
Artillery Brigade
directly subordinated units
Army Corps
Mechanized Brigade
Mechanized Brigade
Artillery Brigade
directly subordinated units
directly under Land Force Command:
Airmobile Brigade
Rocket Brigade
Lviv Military Institute
Odessa Military Institute
directly subordinated units
in the current graphic commons:file:Ukrainian Ground Forces.png we have the 6th Army Corps with 1x Armoured, 1x Airborne, 1x Airmobile, 3x Mechanized and 1x Artillery Brigade. The 8th Army Corps with 1x Armoured, 1x Airmobile, 2x Mechanized and 1x Artillery Brigade. The 13th Army Corps with 3x Mechanized and 1x Artillery Brigade.
Looking at that I think that:
13th Army Corps lost one of its Mechanized Brigades - but which? (24th, 51st, 128th)
8th Army Corps did not change at all
6th Army Corps lost one of its Mechanized Brigades - but which? (28th, 92nd, 93rd) and the 79th Airmobile Brigade was moved directly under Land Force Command
What might have happened within the Brigades (disbandment/ merging of units) I don't know, but would appreciate any information that could help me update the graphic. Also I am currently trying to piece together the new structure of the Russian Army - as far as I know this will be the new major Commands organization: commons:File:Russia Army New.png as to what units will make up the Brigades themselves I do not know their names or numbers yet. Do you have some info that could help me with the graphic? thanks and all the best; --noclador (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought about doing that - especially as I should get more info about all the various support Brigades (Signals, NBC, Air-Defence) of the operational commands soon and thought about doing a graphic for each military district with all the Brigades and Regiments, but nothing below. Well, as soon as the first graphic is done I will tell you and then lets see how to proceed. --noclador (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a printout I once got from a service member - I don't even remember what the title was - something along the lines of "Proposed Army National Guard Modular Force Unit Lineage" or similar - I will rummage through my old papers and hopefully I will find it. But to be sure, I sometimes check the homepage of the NG Divisions to check for accuracy. --noclador (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Buckshot - can't find that paper anymore; I googled for it too - no luck. Another thing: the Russian Army is now putting the axe to its support units too: supposedly over 90% of all support units (AD Brigades, Art Brigades, Signal units, NBC Defence units,... ) will be disbanded to create around 100 fully operational brigades/regiments. Do you know anything about that? As it is the only things I know for sure are the new combat brigades, but the info on the support units is few and unreliable. As it is I rather not start to do the graphics (after all they are a lot of work), when soon 90% of that work will be in vain... so: any sources you have as to the new support units I would appreciate very much; thanks --noclador (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think. I'm not sure what {{standard table}} is really supposed to do; as far as I can tell, the formatting it produces is identical to simply having class="wikitable" on the table itself. Kirill[talk][pf]00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of MAJCOM Wings of the United States Air Force
The problem with the "Provisional" groups is that they are just that. I see you've already done a lot of research on it. 8th Air Force had a 801st Bomb Group during World War II 801st/492nd Bomb Group (Carpetbaggers) at RAF Alconbury but I don't think there is any lineage associated between the units. The world war II group was also Provisional... Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of ways to view this. Yes, they were inactivated while the Army Air Force existed, and in that sense they are inactive "United States Army Air Force" units - although most were never "disestablished" - The USAAF Commands and Divisions were - but not the groups or squadrons.
However, when the United States Air Force came into existence in 1947, all the USAAF units, in essence, became USAF units.. both the inactive as well as active ones. Now these units aren't likely going to be reactivated - although some of the Air Expeditionary Units since 2001 have used numerical designations of inactive World War II units. (I don't know if the lineage has been bestowed on them or not. From what my friends in the Air Force have told me, some have said that the numerical designation was chosen to honor the wartime unit - and some others have said they were just randomly chosen.... the 363d WAS reactivated to continue that unit's linage)... So either way.. as inactive United States Army Air Force, or United States Air Force unit is probably correct I would think... Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know you're as much a USAF historian and org nut on Wikipedia as I am; I wanted to pass this along. EFOIA Electronic Reading Room has some lineage and honors histories available; I requested these about a month ago. They are pretty quick about them from AFHRA. Since a lot of USAF wing and squadron pages are lacking decent references, I thought if multiple individuals put in requests to AF Historical Research Agency, to spread around the workload, the agencies would be more amenable to the requests. Most of the lineage and honors histories of active units are listed on the web page, but some (like the 1st Space Wing, 2d Space Wing and 3d Space Support Wing) had to be specifically requested since they are inactive. If the request is small (a unit or two), then they will not charge any fees for processing (I've had 9 requests filled so far and haven't paid a dime). TDRSS (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you check out the EFOIA Electronic Reading Room docs, (for example) they list the 380th AEW's lineage and honors from when they were the 380th Bombardment Wing until their deactivation in 1995. The AEW part is mentioned where they *could* be activated by ACC sometime. OPSEC considerations will shield that information from being released. But its worth a try (check out the info on 323d AEW in Romania! Bad OPSEC there!) TDRSS (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the friendly reminder. I wrote that one rather late at night, and by the time I finished I had totally forgotten to categorize. Cheers. Cool3 (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFHRA has been kind enough to put some AEW lineage and honors histories on their Electronic Reading Room page. These were requested by me in the early part of June 2009; if you request some, they will send them to you by email/mail and put them online a few weeks after. TDRSS (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just went down the list numerically with my requests. They answered them out of sequence, but did deliver about 5 of them in one sitting. No recent updates in the last week, but the AEWs listed might keep you busy for a while. TDRSS (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'll try. However the Google Translate feature is not very good. My first aim is 308 Division, and maybe more slowly after that. Do you know of any Vietnamese speaking Wikipedians who might be able to help? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 12:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already left the note with the bot maintainer about the 20th BW. These are the major USAF texts which you can find information scattered all over the web:
Thanks for your thoughts at the talk page. Are you able to obtain more information on the 7th and 8th Divisions in the 70s and 80s? There is only very patchy information on the net. Thanks for any assistance you might be able to provide.. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 16:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as conventional formations were concerned, 7 SA Division and 17, 18 and 19 Brigades were established on 1 April 1965. Difficulties with manning levels saw the disestablishment of 7 SA Division on 1 November 1967 and its replacement by the Army Task Force (HQ) and 16 Brigade.
It was decided in 1974 to organize the Army's conventional force into two divisions: 7 SA Infantry Division (71, 72 and 73 Motorized Brigades) and 8 SA Armoured Division (81 Armoured Brigade, 82 Mechanized Brigade and 84 Motorized Brigade). The HQ's of the two divisions were established on 1 August 1974, and they form the basis of the organization of South Africa's conventional forces to this day.
For the umpteenth time....you are not a native Russian speaker, nor even a qualified student of Russian. Whatever you had written for the Journal of Slavic Military Studies does not change the Russian language! Moreover, its not a very good source because it is so damn rare. Only the National Library has it in Australia for example. Your insistence at stamping everything with the English-language stamp is peculiar given the attachment of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias link to that silly statement of yours about lack of translated material on Soviet divisions.
Have you considered that there is a finite amount of resources and a set of priorities in this line of historical research? The priorities in USSR were to research and document the conduct of war first. There are COPIOUS amounts of that sort of data, which includes parts of histories of the divisions in question. Can you appreciate that the US and Commonwealth war experience has been considerably easier to document, and therefore more time has been available to do such nice things as divisional histories? Still, not a lot of people know for example about the slaughterhouse of the British and Canadian (and Polish) breakout attempts from Normandy.
As for your addition that many divisions were recreated two, three or four times....YOU REFUSE TO GET IT!!!!
NO RED ARMY DIVISION WAS EVER RECREATED EVEN ONCE!
The reuse of number DOES NOT MEAN a reconstitution of a unit in the Soviet Union. Its A NEW UNIT. Its DIFFERENT from the method used in the rest of Europe. Division 123 of the 3rd formation is not same as division 123. If the Division 123 died, that's it. Even if its standard was recovered, that is put into the Army storage FOREVER. The division 123 3rd formation gets a NEW standard, everything NEW. There are no connections and no legacy from one to the other. NO HISTORIC CONTINUITY.
Many divisions that reused previous numbers take their histories from the units that were used to base their formation on: garrison regiments, territorial brigades, NKVD brigades, cavalry divisions, mechanised divisions half-way through the 1940 formation, training units, freshly created naval infantry brigades only recently a part of the NAVY! You name it! Some even proudly form Narodnoe Opolcheniye divisions which were not even part of the Army! And no, these had NO connection to EITHER the Civil War divisions, OR the many divisions disbanded before 1937.
So the Moscow's 2nd Stalin rayon Narodnoe Opolcheniye Division taken into the Army as the 2nd Rifle Division (2 formation) had no impact on the history of the 2nd rifles division (4th formation) [6]
Thats why in the Russian Wikipedia article it says
Не следует путать со 2-й стрелковой дивизией, формирования 1919 года
Не следует путать со 2-й стрелковой дивизией, формирования сентября 1941 года
Не следует путать со 2-й стрелковой дивизией, формирования ноября 1941 года
Means NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH 2nd division formed in 1919, OR September 1941, OR, November 1941.
So why do you INSIST on confusing the English reader who might be interested in Red Army's divisions of the Second World War? This is intellectual vandalism for which there doesn't seem to be a template in Wikipedia :) --121.218.225.141 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, what did Mr.Orr have to say about the performance of the British Army in France c.month of May 1940? I understand he is now researching performance of the British Army in the First World War. Maybe he will have something to say about British Army's capability in that war. It is uncharitable towards those who go to war to smear them with pronouncements by academics who were not there and have only the barest of an idea what happened.
You insist on including that comment in the article in the Russian Army on its initial performance in Chechnya, but I wonder how American's may react to a similar comment being included about their troops, say when they ran in panic during the First World War with Sir John Monash looking on, or how they ran again at the Kasserne Pass.
I would recommend that that particular comment be removed, as it will continue to invite what you term "vandalism" because it acts as a thorn for anyone from Russia who reads that, and so agitates on purpose, hardly the purpose for which Wikipedia was intended--121.218.225.141 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've just added a comment by a pair of Russian academics which says essentially the same thing. I would hope - and expect - that articles on the Western Front, Gallipoli, Kasserine Pass, Operation Menace at Dakar, the Battle of France in 1940, and Arnheim would have exactly the same kinds of comments. Western troops have made repeated serious mistakes and failures in their history - only after learning from the German experience in WW2 did Cold War performance improve in some cases. Wikipedia is intended to promote the truth, and however badly it hurts, in any of these cases, serious and severe failures occurred - and that's what should be written. Buckshot06(prof) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a pair of Russian academics is not a solution. Military history is not written like that. This is aside from the highly politicized nature of such comments. The comment needs to be linked to the article, and Orr et, el. transferred to the article where appropriate analysis of the event could be provided. --121.218.70.139 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So there you go, the Normandy breakout which was intended to be a second strategic phase after the landings is depicted in Wikipedia as a relatively successful series of relatively unrelated operations. When I tried to show otherwise I was immediately suppressed. The articles gloss over woeful inadequacy of Allied, and particularly British Army, read Montgomery and Imperial Staff, in their ability to conduct strategic offensives and notably operational manoeuvre. As a result the mobile units, and armour in particular suffered tremendous losses considering it was 1944. But, this will never be admitted to preserve the myth that Allies were competent in their prosecution of war.
Want another proof. Consider how much effort has been spent on the North African Campaign articles. And yet, there is no article on Operation Aberdeen. Why? Because it was an utter failure in the summer of 1942 when the Allies were desperate for a significant victory following Stalingrad. So what did the British Army spend doing between Dunkirk and Op Aberdeen...two years!
There is a persistent bias still in military history that seeks to depict "Russians" or "Soviets" as bumbling fools that won through waste of life despite ineptitude at every level while the Allies won by being efficient and effective, but there is a betrayal of history. There are virtually no strategic operations in the West, or in Italy, or operational manoeuvre for that matter. Every stage of movement East is invariably described as a campaign or advance.
So don't tell me that there is no bias in Wikipedia. And it stems from the many books used to reference the articles. History can't be changed though. Victory over Germany was achieved in the East, and not by "campaigns" or "advances" but by massive strategic offensives using mobile forces to manoeuver and deliver directed force with skill and effectiveness that left German reeling from Kursk onwards. Red Army learned, and won through hard experience that was lacking in the West.
And this is why I think you and others sought to reduce the titles of the operational names by the Red Army to mere 'operations'. It wouldn't look good if Soviet operations were all strategic and offensives, and the Allies hardly had any to show for their part in the war. And the arbitrary renaming of the Manchurian offensive into an invasion, etc.--143.238.68.42 (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for butting in Buckshot, but I wanted to comment on the above rant. MRG, that's a load of bunk. In the past few years, innumerable academic books and articles have come out that have denigrated the western Allies and shown how superior the Red Army could be. For the former, David French's Churchill's Army instantly comes to mind, as does Timothy Harrison Place's Training in the British Army, both of which highlighted giant flaws in that Army's performances during the conflict. Hell, then there's Max Hastings with Armageddon and Nemesis that hardly show the Allies in a decent light most of the time. And as for showcasing how well the Red Army could fight - well to start with there's Glantz and his mountain of work on the subject, not to mention Erickson's two tomes, albeit they're slightly older. The old myth of the superior Western Allies and the bumbling Red Army hasn't existed since the mid-90s at the latest, when the USSR archives were opened up and people started some serious analysis. So please, spare us another rant about how biased history is, because it isn't. Skinny87 (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and this will probably be taken by you as nationalistic or somesuch rubbish, but between Dunkirk and Aberdeen we had this little theatre called 'North Africa' in which we were engaged in heavy fighting, as well as Greece. Not that we performed well there, but still - your accusation that the British Army was sitting about doing nothing is pathetic. Skinny87 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalism works both ways, i.e. when inconvenient facts are omitted. So that makes me a gander :) My point was, Op Aberdeen was a spectacular defeat for the British Army two years after Dunkirk. Editors are more than willing to point to defeats by other forces, and yes, I specialise in the Red Army, but far less willing to do so where British or US armies are concerned.
And, when a study of a given military force is made, yes it is by definition nationalistic.
But you of course refuse to get it. Op Aberdeen is not here, or here. Today the forces involved represent five different armed forces, the British Army, the Australian Army, the Indian Army, the New Zealand Army and the South African Army. And yet, not a word! But this operation foreshadowed Gazala events, and the rest of the North African campaign for the Allies, and later the repeated failures in Normandy. All things are connected. The British Army never learned how to conduct strategic mobile operations using armour. Neither did Americans. You think this is interesting reading for someone interested in understanding WWII? --121.218.70.139 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mrg, thank you for your additions at 8th Guards Rifle Division. I have to give you warning - I have clear precedent for blocking any of these anon IPs you're using. Please either enter into negotiations with Roger D or someone equally senior about being re-admitted, or I will be forced to block you. This is your second warning, following the one about personal attacks, and it will be the last. Please reconsider your methods of contribution. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 15:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What am I supposed to negotiate, the freedom to edit like anyone else? You make such silly suggestions and then blame me for "personal attacks" :)
Maybe I need to spell things out for you.
Wikipedia E N C O U R A G E S what you call "sockpuppets" B E C A U S E while A N Y O N E can edit, one has to have a L O G I N to create articles. Which is what I was doing!
A N D, ShatteredWiikiglass was not a "sockpuppet" of mrg3105 B E C A U S E they were not used S I M U L T A N E O U S L Y. No where does it say I need to announce prior aliases.
Mrg, you need to discuss such things with Roger, as the bureaucrat and administrator whose policy direction I am following. Follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Appealing a block. I will give you 36 hours to do so without blocking this IP you're using. Buckshot06(prof) 03:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, why should I appeal anything? I wasn't supposed to be blocked in the first place! why don't you be a nice bureaucrat and file the right forms for me at the appropriate place and i'll come and sign them :) meanwhile you have fun range-blocking several million ip addressess :) --121.218.70.139 (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand you have no intention of talking to Roger (or anyone similiarly senior?) Mrg, you're a worthwhile contributor, but you do need to change your behaviour. Oh, and by the way. I asked about Aberdeen - check where it links now. I think it is actually covered in a subsection of Battle of Gazala. Buckshot06(prof) 03:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you understand right. I retain my right to edit Wikipedia like anyone else. Roger may be a figure of authority for you, but from past experience I have no interest in talking to him, or any other bureaucrats.
As I said before, the purpose of Wikipedia is not behaviour modification. I think your behaviour needs to be modified also, but that matter is not my concern.
SOME of the Op Aberdeen EFFECTS, are lightly covered in two paragraphs of a section where it is NOT mentioned. It was however a British Army counter-offensive operation which showed that the British Army was incapable of learning either from its own experiments in the 30s, its and French defeat in 1940, or events on the Eastern Front on use of armour, or conduct of mobile combined arms offensives. This was the same point made by Jarymowycz in his book about Normandy. Same modus operandii was used in Normandy as in Op Aberdeen despite change in command, Montgomery. The failure was therefore ORGANISATIONAL.
Military history belongs to the range of fields known as applied history. In other words, just as in engineering which is applied science, the inputs and outcomes, and analysis of the historical process are more important than the recollection of facts. And here in Wikipedia there is a tendency to omit facts. Applied history is therefore concerned with understanding what happened, and not just chronicling the event. This also happens to be the purpose for encyclopaedias..
This is why I was adding so many military terminology and expression articles before, because most editors in the military history project seem to have little applied history training, and just regurgitate bare facts from books, often written by people that are not schooled in theory.
From this perspective, some sources are better than others. Jarymowycz didn't just write a book, but a dissertation intended to change the thinking and perceptions in an entire officer corps of the Canadian and maybe NATO armies. Glantz did same in his never published for public symposiums of the 1980s. Simpkin failed to change the British Army, but had a major influence on the Americans and Germans. Probably this thread of unconventional thinking in this sphere of applied military history begun with John Erickson, who collaborated with Simpkin. However, in each of these cases the writer had to intimately get to know the subject, and since the subject was understanding Soviet forces as a threat in the context of the Cold War, each learned Russian, and in the case of Simpkin also German.
So consider the attempt to create the Normandy breakout article. The most sited works in the Op Overlord are by Milton Shulman (citation missing) from 1947 who as a participating intel officer helped too create the misconceptions Jarymowycz had to correct, and Wilmot who wrote his book in 1951, and is actually a specialist on the naval war in the Pacific! Keegan's Six Armies in Normandy gets ONE citation, while Jarymowycz is not even in the recommended readings!
And this is the reason I have nothing to say to Roger. I have raised the subject of source relevance before, and was ignored. This is why my behaviour is 'unsuitable'. While Wikipedia may not be after the Truth, or even truth, there is in my conception a sense of morality and an unwritten code of ethics that comes with provision of historical knowledge which I think is missing in Wikipedia's military history articles. Such a code is written for Australian historians [7], and a further discussion is available in the Responsible history by Antoon de Baets.
And I quote "...an encyclopaedia article covers not a word, but a subject or discipline, and treats the published article in more depth and conveys the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject." Guess where I found that?--121.218.70.139 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buckshot. I noticed your change on the 2nd Division (New Zealand) article moving the citations needed banner from the references section to the top of the page. Please note, I did not move it. It was actually moved from the top to the references section by Smackbot. Given that it is a MOS requirement for tags to go at the top, is there something that should be adjusted with this bot? — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see they've been noticed... :) Ok all I need are the tags and they'll be put in. I'm on a bit of a break from Wikipedia this week so it may be a few days ... take care... Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wings of the United States Army Air Force in World War II
Hi Buckshot06. You have done some great work on the article so far; well done! Primarily, those cites that are raw URLs must be formatted correctly. What I would advise you to do is go through the article completely and put all the cites into an applicable template. For general web sources, I would use Template:Cite web, for newspaper/magazine web articles Template:Cite news, and so fourth. Sorry for being such a pain in the butt! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am just wondering how come you removed the note that added background information on RAF Middle East Command and the info on the Navy?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buckshot. Is there any particular reason that you have reproposed this (other than perhaps tweaking mrg's whiskers)? I'm not aware of anything that would make such a merger any more apropos than when it was proposed in April. Askari Mark(Talk)02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your quick response to use of my real identity by User:Mrg3105. I appreciate your speedy work; when I want to link my personal relaxation with my professional identity, I'd like to pick the timing!! Would you be able to dump the recent deleted additions of List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 at any appropriate scratch page in my userspace? Although he's extremely annoying and now starting to break rules seriously, he's adding useful information, which I may be able to reformat for inclusion. Thanks again very much Buckshot06(prof) 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you still wish to transwiki this article, go for it! I'm going through a long list of articles for these military terms, and this one doesn't seem likely to become a real article. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, as others have asked you in the past, can you please properly format your citations. Furthermore, providing a link the the wikipedia article about the webpage you got the information, but not a direct link itself is NOT sufficient reference and makes said reference unverifiable risking your edits to be reverted. Thank you in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I come off as "very rude and holier-than-thou", however as I have stated others have asked you to properly format your citations in the past, and as an administrator, I am sure you can understand the reasoning behind my request. No insult or incivility intended of course. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected and thank you for pointing out the policy. I will instead in the future correct others improperly formatted citations rather then asking for them to fix it themselves. Thank you.
I am sorry if you are reading into my text rudeness, impoliteness, or anything else negative. I ensure that is not my intention. But also please consider how your text may come off. I am sure impoliteness is not your intention either, yet the problem with text is people may infer tone that may not be the intent of the writer. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving me notice of that. The link to Jagdgeschwader 71 was not placed in the Luftwaffe article that's why I thought the article did not exist. I'll take care of the problem tommorow, as now I've just got home from a short holiday. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
translation of German maps requested in MILHIST Logistics
First of all, provide your signature with a direct link to your talk page please.
http://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:EuropaNATOWP1959.png reads NATO and Warsaw Pact (Warschauer Pact). Great Britain (Großbritannien) 630,000 ; Federal Republic of Germany (BRD) + Denmark (DK) + Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg (Be[lgien]ne[derlands]lux[emburg]) 777,000 ; France (Frankreich) 720,000 ; Portugal + Spain (Portugal und Spanien [the map shows only Portugal in blue and the number is too low for Spain, so troops are probably only Portuguese with Spain providing moral support]) 68,000 ; Italy (Italien) 360,000 ; Greece + Turkey (Griechenland + Türkei) 520,000 ; Alabania (Albanien) 35,000 ; Hungary + Romania + Bulgaria (Ungarn + Rumänien + Bulgarien) 560,000 ; Germany Democratic Republic + Poland + Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (DDR + PL + CSSR) 1,270,000 ; Soviet Union (UdSSR) 1,250,000 ;
http://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:EuropaNATOWP1973.png reads NATO and Warsaw Pact (Warschauer Pact).
Iceland (Island) 3,700 ; Norway (Norwegen) 36,000 ; Great Britain (Großbritannien) 320,000 ; Federal Republic of Germany + Denmark + Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg (BRD + DK + Benelux) 1,048,200 ; France (Frankreich) 500,000 ; Spain (Spanien) 9,000 ; Portugal (Portugal) 200,000 ; Italy (Italien) 410,000 ; Malta (Malta) 3,000 ; Greece + Turkey (Griechenland + Türkei) 670,000 ; Hungary + Romania + Bulgaria (Ungarn, Rumänien, Bulgarien) 480,000 ; German Democratic Republic + Poland + Czechosloval Socialist Republic (DDR + Polen + CSSR) 1,060,000 ; Soviet Union (UdSSR) 2,900,000 ;
Hi Buckshot, would you mind using your admin assets and semi-protect the RusAF article? I'm tired of those IPs vandalising aircraft inventory numbers (the last sneaky vandalism change lasted for three weeks and was discovered and reverted only today). Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, in my opinion the best possible source would be Air Forces Monthly magazine, considering that their source is Air Forces Intelligence, a highly professional and up to date arms database (I do not have access to AFI, but fortunately I have access to all AFM magazine issues since April 2007). Besides, we could use news articles from reliable news agencies such as BBC or Ria Novosti. Personally I don't trust anymore websites such as GlobalSecurity or Warfare.ru, as they are not sufficiently updated and do not represent the accurate number of operational aircraft. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borzoy of Shatoy District: 42°50′19″N45°37′50″E / 42.83859°N 45.63042°E / 42.83859; 45.63042 on the Itum-Kale - Shatoy road (south from Shatoy which is tagged Sovetskoye on googlemaps, yahoomaps has all correctly, none is in high res). Chechen org says pop 4209 but its highly doubtful (perhaps its pre-war numbers). Zip code 366402. There's also an unrelated Dachu-Barzoi in Groznensky District. NVO (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, NVO would not be pleased with such groundless accusations and all. You'd better hurry and thank him quick :)
As for Chechnya, I don't really do any geo-articles, but it doesn't mean you can't ask me to try if you have a specific one in mind. I don't have many sources for Chechnya (although I have some), but I can always do a search in hopes to find something something interesting. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but if it does, you'll get yourself a stub to at least start with.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:28, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
I think all places in Russia are important enough to warrant an article. It's just that some are more important than others :) I'll see what else I can find on Borzoy, and if it turns out not to be much, I won't be creating one in the foreseeable future. Incidentally, how much would you be able to add to it if a stub is started?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:39, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
596th Parachute Combat Engineer Company - Why deleted?
Buckshot06, I see taht you recently deleted links to the 596th PCEC in the 517th PRCT page and others. Why? The 596th is a viable unit. I can no longer find the page for the 596th at all, so I'm not sure when or who deleted that. Do you have any info? How can I request to reinstate it? Rbarrett3776 (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been adding proper references and infoboxes to the regiment articles which Jim Sweeney has been creating.
Please do not delete the articles meanwhile.
--Vinay84 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Since it was going to be a list, it did not seem like there would be much controversy on Data/sources.
BUckshot, Is there any MoS for lists. Because as far as I know, for lists all the sources are given below instaed of Cluttering up each entry with inline citations.
Ok, so basically, we need to come up with a single source which has all the names in the list and that is enough right? If yes, can you please wait for a day or two so that I can crosscheck the entries with the sources?
Hi there Buckshot, just letting you know that I removed the notability tag you placed on Michael Lockett because I believe the person meets WP:NN because these things are true about him;
The person has received a notable award or honor [...] (from WP:BIO)
Lockett has received the Military Cross, which is a notable award/honour
[The] topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (from WP:NN)
As is shown in the references section of this page, there are many published pieces about Lockett, which are both reliable, and independent of Lockett.
You recently deleted Mikoyan LMFS as a copyright violation, which it most certainly was. However, there was a non-copyvio version in the history. The original author saw the deletion & complained to me (for some unknown reason), so I restored the pre-copyvio version of the article.
Consider this a friendly reminder to check an article's history before deleting. It is rare to find a good version in the history, but it does happen.
I noticed that you speedy deleted Final fantasy 8 guardian forces citing the speedy deletion criteria A7. I feel that the article didn't meet that speedy deletion criteria. A7 only applies to real people, animals, or organizations, or to web content, and a list of special creatures from a video game is clearly none of those. While I do think that the article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, I disagree with the speedy deletion, and ask that you restore the artilce so that it can get a proper discussion at AfD. Calathan (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you would find this interesting - I recieve these articles by subscription mail from a very reputable news / commentary service, so there is no website that I can link to, hence the cut and paste job.
Thursday, October 8 2009 12:00 GMT: Search results: CIS-Russia + Europe + Turkey
· RUSSIA: Navy aims for amphibious power projection
· UNITED KINGDOM: Markets ....... [ deleted by Farawayman...]
RUSSIA: Navy aims for amphibious power projection
October 8, 2009
SUBJECT: Strategic implications of the navy's plans to purchase a French amphibious assault ship.
SIGNIFICANCE: The government will shortly make a decision regarding the purchase of an amphibious assault ship from a French yard. If the order goes ahead, it foretells a significant increase in Moscow's naval power projection capabilities.
ANALYSIS: Of all the Soviet armed services, it was the navy that suffered most in Russia's post-Cold War military decline. A fleet that was once capable of challenging the US Navy -- both on and below the surface -- quietly atrophied in port for most of the 1990s and early 2000s. The Russian navy came to be seen as an embarrassment, moribund and vulnerable to mishaps:
· The small aircraft carriers Kiev and Minsk (both 38,000 tons), once vanguards of the fleet, were sold to China. The former became a floating casino and the latter the main attraction in a theme park called 'Minskworld'.
· In 2000, after an on-board torpedo explosion, the submarine Kursk sank with the loss of 118 lives.
· In 2008, an accidental discharge of fire-retardant gas on the newly launched submarine Nerpa resulted in 20 deaths (see RUSSIA: Accident underscores need for military reform - November 10, 2008).
Post-Cold War priorities. There was some limited investment in the navy in the immediate post-Cold War period:
· Emphasis was placed on maintaining credible strategic defence through financing a replacement programme for the fleet of ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Russia currently has eight to ten operational SSBNs. A new class -- the Borey -- has been under construction for years. The first unit, the Yury Dolgoruky, is undergoing sea trials and a further five (one to be built annually) are planned to enter service over the next several years. One complication is that the Bulava, the new sea-launched ballistic missile that is designed to be fired from these boats, has failed on more than half its test launches.
· Some of the older SSBNs that the Borey class will replace are being converted to carry cruise missiles. Western navies have also carried out such conversions.
· A construction programme was also put in place for nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). The first of a new class (Graney) of cruise-missile capable SSNs is undergoing sea trials (the Severodvinsk), and one new boat of this class is scheduled to be launched each year. Russia currently has 30 SSNs. Smaller diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) are also being produced. Russia currently maintains a fleet of about 60 submarines of all classes, of which 10 would be expected to be on patrol at any one time.
· A limited number of frigates and corvettes have also been built for use in coastal waters.
Power projection. However, submarines and coastal vessels are not weapons of power projection, and Russia in recent years has shown greater appetite for projecting power. As the economy grew and the Kremlin pursued national rejuvenation, naval assets were increasingly used to gain strategic reach and as adjuncts to diplomatic manoeuvres (see RUSSIA: Navy equips for global role - April 16, 2008). There has thus been a rethink in naval policy:
· A programme has been put in place to repair and upgrade the fleet's larger surface vessels. These have mostly been tied up in port since 1991.
· The previous head of the navy, Admiral Vladimir Masorin, spoke in 2007 of building five to six aircraft carriers and the associated escorts (anti-aircraft and anti-submarine). The current head, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, supports the idea.
· Plans have been drawn up to build new port infrastructure in Russia to handle such aircraft carriers.
· Flag-waving, blue-water voyages by significant units and their attendant vessels have become more common over the last two years. In 2007, Russia's last carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov (58,000 tons), ventured out in a rare foray into the Atlantic from its Northern Fleet base. In 2008, the nuclear-powered cruiser Petr Veliky (Peter the Great) sailed to South America and the Caribbean. Nonetheless, such flotillas had to be accompanied at all times by a tug in case one of the ships broke down (see RUSSIA: Global deployment plans exceed capabilities - October 2, 2008).
· Negotiations have also begun to make use of naval bases abroad in such countries as Syria, Libya, Yemen and Vietnam.
· A Russian destroyer has participated in anti-piracy patrols off Somalia since 2008.
Missing ingredient. Despite all this activity, Russia remains short of one particular aspect of naval power projection: amphibious assault. The United States and almost all West European countries have some capacity to put troops ashore using helicopter landing vessels; Russia does not. Russian Naval Infantry (marines) tend to come ashore from large hovercraft. However, the hovercraft in current service are ageing, incapable of open-ocean voyages and can only land troops on beaches. There is an obvious lack of an amphibious assault ship (LHD) that can:
· accommodate several hundred troops;
· carry large troop-transporting helicopters;
· launch landing craft; and
· act as a command-and-control vessel.
Theoretically, such a ship could be built in Russia, but there are major obstacles:
· Much of Russia's capacity for building large naval vessels disappeared when the yards at Mykolayiv on the Black Sea were left in Ukraine in 1991.
· During the fallow years of the 1990s, naval shipbuilding skills were lost as workers in underused yards looked for employment elsewhere.
· Russian shipyards traditionally work very slowly. The first Borey-class SSBN took 15 years to build. The contract to upgrade the carrier Admiral Gorshkov (42,000 tons) for sale to the Indian navy is years behind schedule.
Any attempt to build such a large ship domestically could end in disaster. Purchasing one from a Western yard with experience building these vessels offers a number of benefits:
· It provides for faster construction of a proven design.
· It would allow Russian engineers, as part of the project, to observe and gain experience. Future vessels could then be built in Russia.
· It would also mean that the chosen design could form the basis for the eventual construction of larger vessels. Genuine aircraft carriers -- as envisioned by Masorin -- could be designed and built using skills and experience gained from construction of the LHD.
French Mistral. Russia is therefore considering ordering a Mistral-class LHD (20,000 tons) from France, with Russian workers involved in the construction. Under the proposed agreement, a further three or four of its type would then be built with French assistance in Russian yards. However, two obstacles still stand in the way:
· Cost issues. Russia has been hit hard by the recession and plans made in the flush of the oil boom are now being reassessed (see RUSSIA: Budget revisions reflect crisis priorities - March 16, 2009).
· Political issues. Many in Russia will object to such an order being placed abroad.
CONCLUSION: If Russia does purchase an LHD, it will significantly improve its power projection capabilities. Such a ship -- allied with submarines that can now launch land-attack cruise missiles, improved airborne forces and the availability of powerful open-ocean naval units -- would significantly bolster Russia's ability to carry out military operations abroad.
Keywords: RUCIS, Russia, Caribbean, France, Libya, Somalia, Syria, United States, Vietnam, Yemen, international relations, politics, arms, defence, infrastructure, military, reform, security, shipbuilding, fiscal, foreign trade, government, technology
The Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) failed on yet another test launch yesterday, marking at least the seventh testing malfunction and raising questions about the future of Russia's nuclear capabilities. Work on the Bulava, reportedly a modified and updated version of the mobile Topol-M land-based missile, began in 1998. It was intended for deployment on the new Borey-class submarines, the first of which (the Yuri Dolgoruky) has been undergoing sea trials. However, media reports regarding the Bulava's repeat failures suggest there are multiple problems with the missile and warhead design. Nonetheless, scrapping the Bulava development programme would also entail significant revisions to the design of the Borey-class submarines, an expensive and technically challenging endeavour. This probably explains why the Russian authorities have pressed on with the Bulava despite its poor track record. Russia's existing SLBMs are reaching the end of their service life, increasing pressure on the defence industry to come up with a suitable replacement. Work on the Bulava is likely to continue, but further failures will serve as embarrassing reminders of the deterioration in post-Soviet military research and development capabilities.
Hello, I have a problem that requires the attention of an administrator. IP 208.79.15.102 has repeatedly vandalized several pages, 189th Infantry Brigade among them. But, the IP belongs to a US Military installation so a lot of people edit from it, most of those edits having been constructive. Should the IP be blocked? —Ed!(talk)16:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concern isn't that I don't like what's being said, my concern is that the article, which is a GA, is having uncited material that is clearly the opinion of one person added and validated on it. If he had a reference where some other more reputable source felt the same way then I would be inclined to agree, but he does not, and he has vandalized several other pages in a similar way, leading me to think that this is the opinion of just one person who has a bone to pick. —Ed!(talk)17:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a term more frequently used within the Pakistan Army, but has found its way in the public media recently. When a junior officer is promoted to the next rank, all officers senior to him at the same rank stand "superseded." What this generally means is that such officers have almost negligible chance of promotion in the future (there are a few rare cases, but those are exceptions rather than norms) and they complete their service years in less important posts designated for their ranks. It is also a way to signal the officers that their services in the army are no more required and they should start looking for alternate jobs. For example, when a brigadier is promoted to major general, he or she gets a fix seven years of additional service or some age limit (may be its 54 or 55). However, promotion to lieutenant-general takes place after 4 or 5 years. So the "superseded" major generals have a choice to either complete their service tenure, or stand retired. This article in a major newspaper by a former Army officer should help clarify this term. I do believe, Pakistan Army inherited it from the British Army.
I hope I have answered your question. I will try to incorporate its meaning in the article you referred. Thanks for the feedback! Razzsic (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I keep meaning to actually get a reader's ticket, I've a list of other files I keep meaning to have a look for my own ends (eg the logs of the ship my grandfather was chaplain on during WWII). Do you need to know urgently? David Underdown (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are my works. This is not necessarily a conflict of interest. I see it more a contribution in an area where I have considerable professional/academic expertise.
COI policy, to which you referred, says:
"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."
I think that the work meets the "notability" criterion. One of the works suggested was published a a Tier 1 research university press and was well reviewed in major professional journals. The other, by a major social science publisher, is related to the work of the current Nobel prize winner in economics.
Further, I think that this meets the "within reason" criterion and does not represent "excessive" self-citation, at least from my understanding of excessive.
More importantly, I think that the current set of references on NATO's early period is very limited and could be much, much stronger.
To include more material, rather than less, is supportive of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission and adds to the long tail of available relevant knowledge for people who want to know about NATO's early history.
It seems to me.
--Prmwp (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Prmwp. Actually my primary issue with adding extra books to the long list of already cited works in the further reading section is that it contributes very little to the actual article. The article is not a booklist, it's intended to be an entry in of itself. Would you mind drafting a couple of paragraphs, drawing on your books and cited to particular pages, I can add to the article? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06. How about the following as a separate, concluding section at the end?
NATO is a complex, modern, multi-national military alliance, but it is much more. It is also a partial international political community. As such it has both integrative and disintegrative effects within the larger international system. It provides for collective self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and helps maintain peace internally among members; but it is also prepared to wage war against external actors. Alliance institutions provide a structure for cooperation in various areas such as political consultation, military force coordination, armaments, infrastructure, and scientific research. State members contribute various kinds of resources and receive both collective and private goods. Such a complex, cross-cutting political economy is essential in constructing and maintaining the alliance. Alliance leaders act as political entrepreneurs, using the rhetoric of common ideologies to mobilize coalitions that wish to expand and deepen the alliance, particularly during periods of crisis.
<ref> Francis A. Beer. Integration and Disintegration in NATO: Processes of Alliance Cohesion and Prospects for Atlantic Community. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969), pp. 239-269. </ref>
<ref> Francis A. Beer. The Political Economy of Alliances: Benefits, Costs, and Institutions in NATO. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972), pp. 26-34. </ref>
Prmwp (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot. Is this acceptable? If not, why not, please?'
Why did you delete my own webpage? It certainly met the notability criteria. There are 14 other CU professors, most of which are self-authored or submitted by their friends. I'm in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the World.
1. What is the four day limit, please? If I resubmit, will I be blocked again?
2. I know that it's not my own web page. I have one of those at the University of Colorado.
Nevertheless, it seems a bit abrupt just to take it off. I believe that I certainly do meet the notability criteria. Wikipedia coded it
Further, there is hard evidence of notability, including recognition through a set of honors and awards, as well as a host of books and articles published by reputable professional, refereed outlets.It certainly meets the notability criteria at least as well as the pages of my peers that I consulted in writing it. Further those pages are all written by those people themselves or their close family and friends. Who else would have the incentive to spend the time and effort to do it?
3. I feel a bit disoriented. On the one hand, I try to contribute from a professional perspective to the NATO page, and am prevented from doing so. On the other hand, I try to contribute to the Wikipedia biographical inventory and am summarily removed. I had a different impression of the open source identity of Wikipedia.
--Prmwp (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple: if you are notable, people will get around to writing an article about you. Doing so about yourself is strongly discouraged, as the policy statements I linked you to indicate. Do not try it. You are welcome to edit any other page on the site - just do not write about yourself or other things in which you might have a WP:COI. The four day limit refers to being Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Autoconfirmed_users - autoconfirmed. Just attempt to edit NATO again, at least four days after your first edit as Prmwp (won't work on your other account unless it has reached the four day mark as well), and you should be able to, and it'll be into the Bold, Revert, Delete etc cycle. Buckshot06(prof) 23:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to jump in, Buckshot is right; people should not write Wikipedia articles about themselves or organisations they are personally involved with. If you think that you meet the notability criteria as set out at WP:BIO then you can request that someone else write an article via Wikipedia:Requested articles. Bear in mind, however, that the content of the article will be entirely out of your control. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of the people who write about NATO associated with it? Why is the NATO site blocked to editing? I thought that information wants to be free and that Wikipedia was where information was freest? Why doesn't NATO informationwant to be free? Why are so many people blocked from contributing to it?--Prmwp (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NATO article is semi-protected (which prevents unregistered and recently-registered editors from modifying it) as a result of the large amounts of vandalism it was subjected to. Anyone who registers an account can edit it after a few days or once they've made a few edits. The relevant policy is at WP:SEMI if you're interested. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspecrtive, there is a double standard. The biographical site with my name was subject to the ultimate vandalism, by being summarily deleted. The NATO site is "protected" from my contributions in spite of the fact that I have published 3 books on the subject of NATO and alliances. When I am asked to write something, I am told that "is not what we are doing." Come on,guys. What are we doing ?
--Prmwp (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:NOOB. I recall your attention to "please do not bite the newcomers." As a newcomer,I believe that your actions have seriously violated this policy.
2. WP:COI. I believe that you have a serious conflict of interest on the NATO page.You have an interest in military history, which is fine. This interest leads you to want to frame and shape the NATO page from this point of view. There are other points of view on NATO, which you systematically exclude on the basis of your blocking power. Aside from the exclusion of other approaches, the article as it stands looks very similar to an exended press release from the NATO Public Affairs office.
3. WP:NPOV. I suggested expanding the early history section of the references for the NATO piece, which I believe would seriously improve the article. You reject this idea and enforce your point of view by your blocking power.
4. WP:EW. You Have labeled this section of our interaction in what I believe to be a way that violates WP:NPOV. You have overriden my objections and changed my edits on a number of occasions.
5. WP:VAN You have then accused me of vandalism, when you are at least as guilty as I. I have now ceased to try to restore NPOV, because I have no intention to engage in WP:EW or in WP:VAN.
6. WP:VAN. I believe that you have committed vandalism in deleting the web page as "autobiographical."
7. WP:COI#Autobiography. I have been open and not tried to conceal the fact that I submitted the listing. At the same time, it is not clear to me that it is necessarily disqualified as "autobiographical." a)There is personal information there, modeled on the personal information from other biographical sites. I presumed that this was the correct form. This personal information could be deleted if it is not appropriate. 2)The listing, more importantly, contained a summary of scientific research findings over a period of 40 years. The reporting of these findings does not necessarily violate WP:NPOV. They were published in refereed professional journals. Nor does it necessarily violate WP:COI. There might be a potential conflict of interest if the materials went against the interest of Wikipedia. They do not do so. They are consistent with the objective of Wikipedia. I quote:"Wikipedia's intent is to have articles that cover existing knowledge." The materials are a part of existing knowledge as defined by the professional peer-reviewing social scientific community.
8. WP:BIO. Notability. The appropriateness of the listing rests on notability. The Wikipedia article states that "Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines... Reliable sources generally include .... major academic journals...." The listing meets this criterion. Further, as the listing points out, there are earlier listings in such prestigious sources as Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World. Nowhere in the Wikipedia article on notability does it suggest the criterion of submitter identity. If someone else submitted it, I don't think that would change the situation. In fact, it seems apparent that most of the individual listings of living persons in Wikipedia have been submitted, changed, and/or monitored by their subjects or their close associates. Notability and COI are different criteria that may exist in different degree in different pieces. It seems to me that the way to deal with this is to work with possible COI in an article, rather than deleting the entire piece. Such deletion seems to me to be arbitrary and capricious, when the correct solution should be the interactive editing that is Wikipedia's hallmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmwp (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
--Prmwp (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Buckshot06(talk)05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a paragraph on the structure of the armed forces of Abkhazia in the relevant page. Some information is written there in a phrase that simply lists the various formations: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вооружённые_силы_Республики_Абхазия#.D0.A1.D1.82.D1.80.D1.83.D0.BA.D1.82.D1.83.D1.80.D0.B0 This information was compared with various other Russian-language sources on the military of Abkhazia, so the information Noclador represented in his graphic is what is common to all of the information sources. As an example, the Russian language wikipedia article cites several special forces units and specialised anti-tank batallions that were not found in other sources. As of these other sources, I don't have them handy, due to switching computers a long time ago now. Noclador should have them somewhere in his archives, though. Russoswiss (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are links to various Russian-language websites that deal with the Caucasus, with news, analysis, plain propaganda, you name it. So yes, they are the ones I no longer have. As of the Russian army brigade transition, I haven't really followed it, so I can't say much for now :) Russoswiss (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Buckshot06, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to List of Sierra Leoneans has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary 'Standard type of list--we have one for each country. Name needs to be adjusted.'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Just because a source says something is true doesn't make it so. Azerbaijan is not a democracy, and even if it is it certainly isn't the first democracy in the Muslim world. I will add some sourced text that makes this clear. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very helpful to start threatening me with administrative measures when I am trying to improve the article. If you read it you will see that much of it is just recycled Azerbaijan government publicity mterial. The statement in the opening section reads as a statement that Azerbaijan is the Muslim world's first secular democracy, which is absurd. If the sentence in question relates to events in 1918, that is not made at all clear, and certainly doesn't belong in the opening section of the article - it belongs in the History section. Further, it can't be accepted that any statemment which is linked to a source must be accepted. I can give you sources that claim all sorts of absurd things. On top of that, these are sources which readers don't have access to, since they are just book titles. Do you know what these books actually say? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed any of the substantive points I made above, merely told me to "obey your authoritay" or I'll be blocked. The fact is that there is a sentence in the opening section of the article which is either factually false (if it purports to describe modern Azerbaijan as a democracy), or obscure and misleading (if it is refering to events in 1918). I am told by you and another person that I am not allowed either to delete this sentence or to replace it with sourced material which demonstrates the falsity of the claim. So it appears that you are happy for false and/or misleading material to remain in this article, provided that what you define as proper process is followed. In that case I will take the article off my watchlist and readers can go on being misled. This kind of officious obstructionism is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Buckshot, as I know you are a accurate person, I wish to ask your attention. Could you perhaps take a look into Izzedine, he has accused me of sockeypuppetry here, but this accusation was proved wrong. My main concern now is the behavior of Izzedine, he failed to give a reason for his accusation, instead he simply awaited a checkuser report. I dont believe its right to randomly accuse people this way and not give out a reason. I kindly asked him for a reason, but he ignored to give one, instead he was busy with other things, I note the following:
Here he send Intelligent Mr Toad a message and I qoute him saying: "This one seems like a problem editor. If you have further concerns about him and decide to report it, let me know." and gives a link to the sockpuppet investigation that he just a few moments earlier had started.
Is this even allowed? When I asked him to eloborate this, he said and I qoute: "Yes (Neftchi), perhaps an edit-warring report needs to be opened in addition to this, as it looks like you are causing disruption to many editors." (this can be seen in the deleted socketpuppet investigation here
Now you know Intelligent Mr Toad the user who several times removed the sentence of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic... and start a headline on this matter.
Now suddenly Izzedine joins in with Intelligent Mr Toad, as can be seen here.
His anti-Azerbaijan mood continue's in the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic article in where he completely removes well sourced information in the lead, he doesnt join the talk or give a valid reason for his removal, he simply says "ridiculous statement for the lead", see here
Its also worthy to mention that his first edit in the Azerbaijan article ever has to revert my edit, as can be seen here
In his second edit in Azerbaijan article he again removed fully sourced information, seehere
After all this he blanked out the sockpuppet investigation page [9] and wanted a speedy deletion of the investigation [10] then the admin restored the information of the investigation [11] but again Izzedine blanked out the entire investigation page [12].
I am shocked at this behavior and wonder if this is acceptable or not, I wish the admins to take a look at this urgent matter as all his vandal-attacks are still unreverted. I understand this is not your normal routine but since you are an experienced user who know the procedures well, I ask you this in hope you could assist in this matter. Neftchi (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you are involved in the article about Azerbaijan. Can you review my change and take a look at the talkpage? Proger keep undoing my edits and has left some threats in my page, do those have any merits? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XrAi (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Division For Iraq Army (7 January, 1959). "JAN 6, Army Day. ... announced that the Prime Minister, Brigadier Kassem, had been promoted to the rank of general ... The formation of a new division - the fifth - of mechanized infantry was also announced,"
Rebel Kurds faced by three Army divisions (19 March, 1974). "MAR 18. Iraq was reported today to have fielded three Army divisions, totalling 48,000 troops, to suppress the rebellious Kurdish minority in the country's oil-rich northern regions." [It continues to say the forces were ready to attack around 20,000 Kurdish troops, but were waiting for a 15 day ultimatum to expire on March 26].
you are welcome :), The main source for the article is The commander of the Kuwaiti brigade He has published a book about the battle (2007) Fortunately, Iraqi Armored Brigade Commander here he Wrote an book of iraq wars (also he published his book in 2007) Including this battle, There are more battles during the iraqi invasion of kuwait Especially the invasion of the island of Failaka --Σύμμαχος (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot, you made some major edits to the Azerbaijani Armed Forces article without any talk. Now you expect everyone adjust to your perspective. You know very well this is not how it works, its best to discuss things first, this would prevent an edit-war. I reverted your controversial edits in the article. If you dont agree with the usage of some words regarding Karabakh, you can join the talkpage. We can solve this and reach common ground as we did in the earlier articles. Neftchi (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... since the Ardennes front was hit with a German offensive that was 26 divisions strong. An older colleague of mine who passed away a couple of years ago was in the U.S. 106th Infantry Division and was among the few in that unit who successfully evaded capture by the Germans. R.I.P. Dick Waldron.
{{helpme}}
Thankyou Fail, but the template I want is the one that goes at the bottom of the article and produces a message that goes something like 'This article is a copy of the (X) article in the German wikipedia, version 21 December 2009 10:04.' What is that template? Buckshot06(talk)04:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{helpme}}
Thankyou Fetchcomms and Fail, but I am looking for an article template for the bottom of the article space, not the talkpage space. Please refrain from removing the 'helpme' tag until someone comes up with the correct article space template.
The template I want is the one that goes at the bottom of the article and produces a message that goes something like 'This article is a copy of the (X) article in the German wikipedia, version 21 December 2009 10:04.' What is that template? Buckshot06(talk)04:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, your delete vote was labelled "per SADADS", but he has recently changed his vote to keep due to the article being restructured to include scholarly sources on the topic only. Would you like to further clarify your position? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was being careful, but I admit I did break a link after 62,000 good edits. With more care, maybe I can halve that error rate, and only break a link every 124,000 edits. BTW, I put italics around "Oriskany" for you. Happy Holidays! Chris the speller (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see I wasn't being too subtle. Don't feel like you're alone in WP. I also do quite a bit of fixing up military and naval articles, so feel free to ask for help or an opinion. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message concerning the redirect page Staff Noncommissioned Officer. I wasn't trying to suggest the redirect page be deleted, but only the associated talk page, as its only content is presently the "merged-to" tag. There had been some other stuff on the talk page, but someone else removed it while I was merging the article with Non-commissioned officer--Robert Treat (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, please allow me to share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I understand - sorry havent been in to help - have too many fronts to cover at the mo - I am also very interested in getting colonial dutch east indies military history stuff up too - but my files are buried very low down in a very large heap :( - thanks! SatuSuro03:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:) my user page has my location as at perth western australia - I do have access to academic libraries in this city - possibly in them as they have had at times indonesian history and culture courses - drop me a wiki talk or email if there are few 'must haves' and I can check the academic libraries when they are open again later this week or the next, or try the Indonesian project talk page - always worth a question - you never know what might pop up - but sometimes silent as hell SatuSuro05:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. At the moment I'm working on SAC wings and groups (I've already edited the SAC navbar) and I'm about halfway going though the 4-digit wings. As I was unaware of the previous discussions about this, the best way to do this is for you to update one of them, then I'll go back and standardize the rest on your example. Most of them were turned into AFCON wings anyway and I'm including their history (plus what I can find at AFHRA) into the AFCON wing unless it was a standalone wing then I'm creating a new page for it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A useful link I use is http://airforcehistoryindex.org, which is an indexed database of the AFHRA's holdings. Many times I find useful information in the microfilm roll information header listed on the website, instead of going though the process of getting the roll if I'm just casually interested in the unit. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's there and since I'm acquiring a number of emblems as I go through the units, I'll work on this page after I'm done with SAC (probably in a month) and arrange the emblems by level of command I've put the SAC Navbar in. Also I've gone though the 1946/1947 USAAF SAC groups and put them in a separate category on the navbar. I'll do the same on the SAC emblems gallery as well. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go head and list it for deletion in a week. That will give me some time to get all the emblems onto unit pages. What needs to be done for each unit is to (1) move the file to commons, or.. probably better (2) this is an opportunity to convert them all to .png as part of the move. I can get each wing emblem from the navigation bar and do that then. Also, do we want to put the NAF and Air Division unit emblems in there as well or just the wing/groups? The commands are just as much a part of SAC as the Wings were. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it does look as if you got the wrong end of the stick mate. I have re-done the Russian Airforce aircraft numbers and types of aircraft (however I cant edit it in because it is protected). So I have attached a new version of what it should be like, or atleast a more accurate version. Please let me explain, and I hope you understand. When looking at the Russian aircraft numbers and types of aircraft, I noticed the numbers were clearly too highy and obviously edited with NO source except that of Russian pride. I also noticed that some aircraft types listed are put in the list Twice such as the Su-24, and some aircraft listed have been removed from service in the russian airforce for years!!!! but still people (Im guessing Russians, who By the way I have nothing against) kept editing in these aircraft in, and whats more, were editing in huge crazy numbers.
So what I did, was use one source, which as it stands is pretty reliable and proffessional. It also includes data running into December 2009 and January 2010. here is the source http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2180&catid=241&type=bombers
please look below for a better, more organized and more accurate version. I also included a little paragraph, explaining the source used etc etc
please reply and tell me if you decide to use this version, or will just simply keep the current one already on the Russian airforce artical
Due to the secrecy of the Russian Ministry of Defence, the actual numbers and types of aircraft in the Russian Air force is largely unknown. However it is believed that this source [1] can give a fairly reliable and up to date account of the Russian Air force.
The Russian Air force operates around 2,832 aircraft of all types. This includes 1,351 fixed wing combat aircraft, 200 strategic bombers and 305 attack helicopters.
Restored the section about the wing failing it's inspection. I should hope that when the issue is corrected that also is noted in the article. Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm looking to renominate 45th Infantry Division (United States) for A-class review. Last fall you opposed the article on the grounds it needed more secondary sources, and I have added several new books. I was wondering if you would give it a glance to see if it now has enough secondary sourcing in your opinion, or if I should continue adding more. Thanks, —Ed!(talk)00:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buckshot. Apologies for the delay in reply, but I have been rather busy the last few days! :) I'm feeling a little out of my depth on the COMFLOT issue, and I was wondering if you would mind adding the information in? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wing, Prov, 72, versus 2nd Bomb Wing
Thanks for your insertions of the maintenance wings etc on those pages. Can you tell me the reason the difference in naming between these two styles of wing name (Reconnaissance Wing, Prov, 72, versus, for example, 416th Bomb Wing? Kind regards and happy new year, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Provisional Format: In 1972 the designation for a Provisional (Temporary) Unit was Mission/Echelon/Designation Example: Strategic Wing (Provisional), 72 Not 72nd Strategic Wing (Provisional) nor Strategic Wing (Provisional), 72nd or 72d.TLHorstead (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In the summer of 1971, I carried a Retired 4 Star General named Curtis LeMay on my KC-135 (Combat Lightning 61-321) to Honolulu from March AFB, as my aircraft just came out of PDM (Programed Depot Maintenance)at Boeing and was returning to Southeast Asia (RTNAfld U=Tapao), 321 was 1 of 7 Combat Lightning aircraft with special communications aircraft and we were delivered to Grissiom to pick up the the Comm & Crypto Equipment that was not needed during PDM, from the 3rd Airborne Command & Control Squadron. The aircraft had just been repainted and did not have any external markings as to Unit Assignment. General LeMay asked what unit the Aircraft was from and I replied (We - The Airplane & I - the Crewchief) were from the 99th Bomb Wing at Westover, The Flight crew was from the 305th at Grissiom. his reply was the word "Bomb" is a word according to Webster has a secondary meaning of failure and the name on the Lineage is "Bombardment" this is and was SAC Policy. It took a (DA) Fighter Pilot named McPeak to officially rename the Units to "Bomb" from "Bombardment", and these units were not redesignated while assigned to SAC but while the were assigned to ACC. If the period of time is during the period of time the unit was assigned to Strategic Air Command, I correct the name to "Bombardment"
Hey I sourced the correct information which is neutral. Why do you keep changing my edits? Please stop. I sourced it numerous times (MULTIPLE ARTICLES). Please do not change insurgent body count back to the 2007 report! I am not vandalizing just trying to ensure confidence in the correct info posted by wiki. I dont understand why dont you just read the sources I put up...if you read them they are neutral and not biased. They are facts! Also with my revision changes with the PKK same thing, you guys complain on biased information when I find a neutral source about the pkk casualties and Turkish casualties but you revert it to the Turkish military site sources which is biased? ? ? I dont get you wiki people. (129.21.84.85 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
O right i get you sorry didn't mean too... And MIDN is an officer training rank. I joined the USMC 2 yrs ago and am training to be a officer (USMCMIDN (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Buckshot, you might enjoy this -- a couple of online reports of actual unit strength of German units and organization for the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps. See the "reports" link. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counter Insurgency? ? ? Basically what you said winning the hearts and minds of the people. IOT win this war we need to look at the past history of Stan, in the past countries focused on kill counts and a war of attrition with the insurgents we see in Stan today we can conclude that a war of attrition will not work unless we kill off every single Afghan (by constantly killing people we make new enemies). Instead we need to convince the Afghans that the Taliban are bad (which we are doing and they already know we know this because of bands fighting the Taliban in the Pashtu villages in the mountains aka Anti Taliban Forces) and protect them (which we also are doing). We are not putting our focus on the Taliban we instead put our attention to the people and by winning them over,by doing this they expose the Taliban to us because they see us as friends instead of foreign invaders, which the Afghans think of any foreigner in their land. As seen in this recent operation. We also are embedding USMC in ANA ranks to make the people feel that their new govt can and will protect them against all threats unlike past govts (in past Stan, the govts were weak causing the people to rely on themselves for security, infrastructure, food, resources etc... this made them form up their own bands and own mini govts around the country thus the Taliban came to be when the Mujahideen became corrupt than the Taliban became corrupt. We are trying to have the govt do the work or at least make it seem like that. If the people see their govt doing work, this creates a calm and respectable mindset from the normal Afghan that his newly formed govt will hold and not screw up like before...but it is a process which will form in a couple of years once we work out the kinks. COIN also is mainly focusing on PSYOPS and Public Affairs more than ever. We need the peoples help to win this war. We have USMC ETTs and MTTs all over the country getting to know the people, learning their culture and ways of life, we do this to make the Afghan feel like we really care about them (which we do), unlike other "invaders" who just disrespected them and killed them.
A major thing in this war part of COIN is the discontinued enemy body counts. Most of NATO stopped counting enemy dead because of the threat of the Afghan civilian reading that the coalition killed "put number here" of his fellow Afghans will anger him and may turn him from civi to combatant. We do not want that, if that makes sense... However there are still news agencies that will interview NATO commanders and get a number...(one of the many reasons reporters should not be apart of war...)
Oh no doubt that the ANA is weak and the newly formed govt has many problems. As for what you were saying about our forces not building knowledge with the "power" players of the Afghan society I am not familiar with what other branches are doing with the ANA but I do know the USMC is taking an extreme interest of building ANA confidence, trust, and passion for duty... That being said I am not sure what the USArmy is doing nor the USN, or USAF.... I would hope to think the Army is doing the same but maybe not, I am only schooled on USMC and not really on the other branches. Traditionally the USMC are the ones mainly used as shock troops and with the surge in Stan it would not surprise me if the USArmy is letting the USMC do all the work with the surge and the ANA because the Army is more of a show of force kinda thing. Remember we cannot win this war by ourselves we need the ANA to do it, that is why the USMC is trying to make the ANA do searches through villages, personal property etc... To make the people feel confident in them. In recent ops the ANA are right next to the USMC.
As for the ANA again there is hope... but it will take some time. Note the western world and ME/South Asian world is very different. We are taking untrained men who are not used to fighting or operating how NATO or other western countries fight and putting them through a rough training program that they are not used too, so it is a totally different world for them being in the ANA. I heard from a Capt. that the USMC are used to putting 12 hour days in and the ANA are used to putting in 4-6 hour days... as you can see it is a process training these men. But I think we will see the same success with the ANA as the newly formed Iraqi Army. As you remember they were very rusty at first and now they are securing their own country (with MTT and ETTs as advisors)
Note when I say MTT-military transition team (which basically are advisors) and ETT- embedded training teams (which are small numbers of USMC personal who go out on missions with the ANA or Iraqi army often as leaders)...when I say MTT and ETT I mean the USMC not any other branch, so the USMC embeds themselves with the ANA and Iraqi army I am not sure if the army does the same thing or not, I would hope they do. (USMCMIDN (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Could you please put a protection on this list of Indian Air Craft numbers, people keep editing with crazt numbers while providing NO source, and its allways differant numbers every day. one day its 330 mig-21s, the next its 400, then I edit it back to its REAL figure of 124, and some one edits 250. This is happening across the borad and the list is just readint totaly wrong. Now no-one can make any real sourced and up to date edits becuase bias people are determined to try and chage reality by edititng the list
Hello, I'd like to discuss your edit if possible. I'm one of (horrible) Russian admins and I used to be on of the (terrible) arbitration committee members although I personally didn't take part in the rulings described. I think there are inaccuracies in your edit. While it is true that users had been blocked for behavior outside Wikipedia, I don't know any occasions when it was done "for critical blog comments about other Wikipedia users" unless you think that repeated abuse, name calling etc is a "critical comment". The admin/vandal story got lost in translation, too. She was desysoped mainly for repeated wheel-warring and the indefinitely blocked vandal having access to her computer and her knowledge of his accounts and passwords (similar circumstances weer sufficient for a desysop in Spanish Wikipedia) was just an icing on the cake. The "glass of water accident" did not involve an admin and had happened half a year later at a Wikiconference. Please, consider changing your edit. Thank you.--Victoria (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as my knowledge of admins on this site is limited, and you're the first person I found who is currently able to listen, I shall ask you this. If so many other sites use the Konami Code to have things happen on them, would it be possible for Wikipedia to do so themselves? Sincerely, Watcher. (My name on another wiki).
Revision history of Battle of Debrecen -- Buckshot06, I'm unfortunately involved in a "revision war" in the Battle of Debrecen article. User Blabaaa insists on deleting an information footnote regarding casualties in the battle. I contend the footnote should remain as it points out how widely casualty claims can vary depending on source; user Blabaaa contends that is "Soviet fantasy" and should not be entered at all in Wikipedia in any form. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and I may have violated the multiple revert rule -- but I can't even get the user to discuss the changes without it being reverted again. I think it is time for a third party to look at the issue as I don't see Blabaaa and I coming to agreement. Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
first of all: he is writing something in a ref an put this behind figure of krivosheev this is simply wrong and should not be done. Blablaaa (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can u explain me the value for the reader when he knows nonsense numbers of soviet era? i only see a attempte to mislead the reader. the article presents the reader numbers of "official" soviet books without marking them as sfi fi. so the reader without background will take them as serious "range" . please respond to this or delete the footnote.... Blablaaa (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It lists both 1950s German and Soviet figures. "NOPE: he changed my refs i gave the numbers of "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Volume 8 (2007)". i refed the historian who used the numbers he changed to "official german" sources. Blablaaa (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no statement of authenticity intended" it should!!! because this soviet sources arent reliable, they imply that the "real casualties" are between the german and soviet sourcesBlablaaa (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
to be honest: i dont want to do, i want that other people dont add unreliable sources or when they want to show "examples" that they mark them as sci fi. furthermore it would be fine when he dont put a ref behind number of krivo when the ref is about something else. this is not good and dont follows wiki guidelines u as admin should see this . so please remove or tell him to remove/repair his ref Blablaaa (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It's your opinion on the Soviet official history's worth that is at the core of this. Only you are vehement about it." its against the rules!!! thats not my opinion that wiki , can u read the article of using refs please??? iam not sure why i have to explain whats wrong on these refs. the shitty soviet sources claim more tanks destroyed than the entire army group south had DAMNBlablaaa (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
u claim that soviet propaganda books are a reliable source on wiki? ok then lets go . i will come online later then we will discuss with some other users or admins your "interesting" opinion. Blablaaa (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06, I have added the relevant dates for both the original Russian version and the translated German version of the Soviet official history (the dates are 1978 and 1981, respectively.) I have also added a strong cautionary statement regarding information produced by totalitarian regimes. Thank you for looking at the situation, your edits, and your suggestions for resolving the situation. Blabaaa's statement that I redirected the citation regarding the German official history is a bit of confusion on his part. In the text of the article I used "German official history" as the citation as the "sources" part of the article presented the full title of the work. He edited some of the citations, but credited them to the author who wrote the Debrecen chapter of the German official history in Volume 8 without identifying the work itself. I was trying to remove the ambiguity of these citations by pointing them back to the German official history, but in hindsight I can see how this might have looked like something underhanded was done. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
deleting Unreferenced BLPs. Nominate them for CSD or PROD or AFD, but why should I trust your single judgement? Has the RFC been completed and agreed on a new CSD category? Then stop it.The-Pope (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about some more, looked at your contribution history... and I cannot understand why you did what you just did. One minute you're working in your usual military related area, then you go and out-of-process delete a pop singer and a financial analyst, then back to Russian military? Why? One was tagged for almost 3 years and is fairly promotional in tone, but the other one was only a few months, and she's been nominated for a major music award. What a bizarre choice of edits. OK, you voted "delete on sight" in Phase 1 of the RFC. But the 50-odd supports to that proposal were counted by three times as many opposes. Why shouldn't I report you for ignoring the rules and conduct unbecoming of an administrator - or are you going to fall back on the "ignoring all rules" free pass? Or do you want to get an "attaboy" from Jimbo too? Or is this another off-wiki organised attack on UBLPs? Please explainThe-Pope (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Murphy is one of the best known technical analysts in the world. His book is probably the best seller ever in the category and was the only technical analyst every hired by CNBC, where he had a regular spot for years. His book is also used by universities. There was no discussion of deleting the page. I demand it be brought back. His name is mentioned in other articles.Sposer (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added a couple of refs and made a change or two. His book is no longer used for CMT, but it used to be. I am leaving it out since that info is not on the web and I am not going to scan in old requirements. I don't know where some of the other info is shown and verifiable, although I know him personally (he has not asked me to do this). I accidentally typed his name as lower case. If you know how to fix that, please do, as I don't. Sposer (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
since the Dutch were not in the invading force along with the british and americans but only half a year later i know your map doesn't represent the invasion.
I know for a fact the Dutch were also present in al khidr, and ar rumaytha. Could you perhaps edit that in? wait. even when i search wikipedia for "al khidr iraq" you'll see that dutch marines were stationed there :) cheers mate 81.68.255.36 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, I've never worked there. It would probably be worth going to Wikt and asking there. Also, User:EVula does a lot of inter-wiki stuff (mostly to foreign language Wikipedias), and if he doesn't know, he'll know where to refer you. For the time being, however, I would remove the template lest some admin delete it before we get it rolling. I think there is a template to suggest a transwiki that doesn't prod it as well. bahamut0013wordsdeeds12:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Divisions of Indonesia is highly ambiguous - might mean something to you - but there is nothing to identify it as milhist - either project tag on the talk or something - needs something more than that - cheers SatuSuro08:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah milhist admins might have a sense of power (boy have i met some deadhead ones from the states) but i can sense that some people would rip em out as overlinking regardless of your status :) - as for 'divisions' - its now ok - cheers SatuSuro08:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in a place on Friday lunch my time I could get timelines - if you want them ... but youd have to remind me again tommorow as I have crazy times next two days :) SatuSuro08:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me check a few things first - then if i can source some stuff ill let you know by tommorow - there might be a dead end on some of this stuff though. 08:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
See that one finished about 69 - suharto was still alive and busy cleaning the place up so his involvement with diponegoro division goes back at least 10 years and some very funny business - I would say that unless some enterprising military historian from outside of indonesia has dome something - youre outta luck SatuSuro08:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overviews from something like http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/indonesia/abri.htm can give the pedestrian enquirer a few clues, but diggin into the 1940's and 1950's it is not a sexy subject in academia these days - hardly any indonesian military experts left in captivity (who know maybe not even in our intel agencies any more either?) across the board in oz - retired or left right out - have you tried to see if the divisions have their own websites and own histories? SatuSuro08:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might help better than i can - wherever you are it gives you an idea what you may or not be able to access - http://trove.nla.gov.au/book/result?q=indonesian+military+history - and some of the online ones look good - but its gonna be hard to put it all together as i suspect the clearly institutional histories are gonna be biased - and even the outsiders have their axes to grind - i gotta get off - sometime tmmmorow - cheers SatuSuro09:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh - if that is how you start stubs - I hope you get barnstars or awards or anything - just that small stub imho is a good start - and the smells that come of that kodam are more than youd ever get in a fish shop - or a rubbish tip - they sure were up to some interesting stuff in the old days if you believe the rumours SatuSuro00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW if you havent noticed - they love lists - names, things,.... there are issues from that - that make watching Indonesian lists and articles an intriguing sport SatuSuro00:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder - my access to what I want on Friday might be limited - but I will be in a Perth, W.A. academic library - which has had in the past a good group of Indonesian society and culture courses (Howard era reduction of funding for asian studies denied we have Indonesia as a neighbour :)) - so I'll give it a go - otherwise Wednesday next week will be the outside grasp of some other books if the friday uni library venture doesnt give up its treasures easily :) - thanks for your patience - and I am impressed by that stub! SatuSuro04:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got something - what I would call tertiary sources (ie they have good footnotes and biblios)- new order military histories - from my old university today - (most of the primary/secondary materials there as I would call em in indonesian only) gimme the weekend to have a thorough browse - hey I think we have some clues in em anyways = cheers SatuSuro09:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime mate on or off wiki if you are interested in Indonesian stuff I have good access via the ole stamping ground - but hey you need a medal or something for your intrepid milhist work - I was in St Petersburg/Russia last year and with the wrong camera in their maritime history museum (across the river not far from the tsars island/fort/burial grounds) and wow if I had had the patience, time and a good tripod - I would be doing stuff for months just on that - it was brilliantissimo - pity about the crappy camera and lack of time :( SatuSuro09:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once upon a time I was fairly deft with tables. Point me to the complete Afghan O/B and I will take a stab at it during my Thursday/Friday weekend. Just keep an eye on it and make corrections as needed. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re: Afghan National Army OrBat graphic; I have begun the work, but as I am experimenting with a new design I would like to hear your take on how to do the graphic: to the left you see the new design- since we do not know the battalions numbers/names just the symbols are there. And under each of the brigades I put the symbols corresponding to the basic brigade structure of the ANA. to the left you find the "classic" design with text. but since we do not know the brigades battalions names they are omitted. which of the two designs do you prefer? --noclador (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the feedback - I will do the right design then (and maybe add somewhere in the corner a little diagram about the standard ANA brigade structure - will see how it turns out :-) and thanks for the tip with the attribution message in the image! Will definitely do that, as the continuing use of my diagrams in military magazines annoys me quite a lot! --noclador (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
over the next weeks I will make a check on all the images I did - look if they are still accurate and up to date - and replace them peu á peu with new versions with the message in them :-) --noclador (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D30 removed, Copyright symbol removed, re: Commando Btn. I am sure the 215th will get one: currently there are six (as far as I know and a 7th is forming) - leave or remove? please let me know what you prefer. regional logistics depot removed. as for the shadow background stretching across the entire image - have to check how that works out.
should I mark it in the image as provisional or in the text on commons or in the text in the ANA article? or all three??? --noclador (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all three places, I think. This is 'best guess,' not official information. Also thanks for the Kazakh table. The source site, Vad777's at brinkster.net, is inaccessible right now, so I can't check the accuracy. But I like the in-diagram attribution note - think you should stick that in the Afghan one too. Cheers Buckshot06(talk)23:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done everything - except for the provisional note in the graphic - I hope that commons and a warning in the article will be enough. --noclador (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sukardi, Rinakit
The Indonesian military after the new order (NIAS studies in contemporary Asian history;2)
Singapore Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) 2005 ISBN981-230-231-X
page 21
Nasution’s second step in exercising his Middle Way !!My comment - his speech on 12 November 1958 - reference page 19 same book!!! principle involved the reorganization of the military body and the appointment of officers, including himself, to become members of the National Council and National Planning Council in 1958 !!! viz footnote 11 page 55 - National Council established 6 May 1957 (Regulation 7/1957) and National Planning Council 23 October 1958 (Regulation no 80/1958) -NC to advise president, NPC to formulate broad policy guidelines for country !!!
ok here it all is the origins (so Kodams started 1958)
The re-organization of seven Military Territories (Tentara dan Territorium, T and T) into 17 Regional Military Commands (Komando Daerah Militer, KODAM) increased the number of higher positions for the officers. In practice it not only doubled the number of panglima (regional miltary commanders) and their associated staff organizations but also reduced the factional infighting among the officers prevalent during the T and T era
Also the best looking ref for all of this so far
Sundhaussen, Ulf. 1982 The Road to Power:Indonesian Military Politics 45-67 Kuala Lumpur OUP
Hello Buckshot06, I've noticed what appear to be a pair of problematic history articles. The biggest problem with them appears to be that they are very POV, to the point of being sensationalistic. The articles are
The first is the moved version of Western betrayal, an article that was considered to be very POV; the second is a new article, but includes material that was previously in "Western betrayal", just that the eastern European material has been moved into it. As an aside, the second article is terribly named, it sounds more like a travel guide title than a Wikipedia article on how military and political decisions impacted eastern and central European nations in the Second World War.
I've mentioned this to Nick-D, his take is that both of these are POV minefields that should be deleted. I thought at first that perhaps "Controversial command decisions" could be rescued if written in a very different format, but a recent exchange of notes with the editor writing the article makes me believe that any attempt to steer the article on a less-POV course will only start an exchange of edits/reverts. Having just gone through that with the Debrecen article, I want to try a different approach.
So all this leads to my question, which is how best to approach this in terms of Wikipedia procedure. Should I post the articles to the "Articles for Deletion" list to prompt a discussion and, hopefully, serious review by other editors? While I'm certainly no expert in every aspect of the war, I know enough about the late war Western Front to realize the situation is being badly misrepresented in "Controversial command decisions" and I suspect that is pretty much the case for each of the situations these articles discuss. The "Central and Eastern Europe" article should probably be deleted simply because its scope is incredibly large and my guess is that each issue mentioned in the article could probably rate an article of its own instead of all being thrown together into what looks like a list of gripes.
If you have suggestions about the best way to get some good peer review going on these articles, I'd appreciate it. My personal take is that both of these articles don't pass muster as solid historiography. Thank you for any comments. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buckshot, I've just provided comments on the ISF article - I'm pleased to see that the ADF's article's structure has been transferable to it. If you have time, could you please read over the Australian Defence Force article though and let me know what you think? It's long-overdue for an update (the section on the ADF's high-level command arrangements is now almost totally out of date, for instance) and a fresh pair of eyes on the article as a whole would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the sheer volume of your edits and the speed - is there anyway we can re-talk the indonesian divisions issues of history - or shall I promise the world and get delayed again? I realise your focus is multi faceted - its just i have been diverted by a few real life and other wiki issues of recent :) SatuSuro01:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a horrible feeling you are at a uni i know about - I consider Syrian and Jordanian military as interesting :) - there is a long beer/coffee/rant that could explain all - but not now... SatuSuro02:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The emblem galleries are actually functional, instrumental parts of all the base wp articles, and I don't believe therefor qualify as an actual "image" gallery. Can you please cite the specific guideline you basing this upon? Srobak (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide him any enlightenment with regards to the specific guidelines for removal of them on article pages? Thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for this late reply for your question about the defence of Vietnam. Actually modern warfare is not my line (I prefer pre-15 century history), I wrote those articles only because I've just read the latest version of the White Book of the Vietnam Ministry of Defence and thought that those poor quality articles need some new information. If you have any question about the defence system in Vietnam, you can go directly to Vietnamese Wikipedia and ask whatever you want, because there are some users there who can surely answer them without difficulty of knowledge or English. Cheers. Grenouille vert (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I only have the Vietnamese version and don't know where one can find the English version. If you still want the Vietnamese version then here you are :). For other info, you can go to Vietnamese Wikipedia as I said above, but please remember that in Vietnam, defence is strictly confidential, it is very difficult to find out the exact statistics or information about the defence system in Vietnam, so one'd better be please with the (few) published sources :). Grenouille vert (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no, it's not a sensitive stuff at all, actually Vietnamese people like very much to discuss about the recent development of defence in their country, the point is that the Vietnamese government does not disclose details of the military system (which is justly done, I think) so it's hard to find info, that's all. I just want you to know that just ask and be satisfied with the partially-answered replies, that's all :). Grenouille vert (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information on such an organization would seem to be on the periphery of interest for the Armenian government. However, if you have yet to read the article, there is the Land mine situation in Nagorno Karabakh, which contains extensive information on the activities of the HALO Trust and other groups who have been working for several years now to remove all AP and AT devices in the region. They currently have an office in Stepanakert and if it's not readily accessible online, I'll see if I can find any contact information so you can ask them if they know of other organizations that are taking part in such activities in Azerbaijan proper. If I come across anything else, I'll let you know. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a few examples so I can check them out? I enjoy importing pages like that as well. However I can't guarantee anything, since the Nostalgia Wikipedia only has history up to 21 December 2001, and Conversion script edited in late January 2002. Graham8705:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Western Australia, as it says on my user page. Anyway I didn't just have a particularly long lunch. :-) I just got distracted by something else. I'll get to it right now. Graham8707:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buckshot, please help me keep and eye on Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan. There is nationalist making the rounds on Kazakh articles to inflate his home country to a superpower... and in the process also massively inflating the military numbers at the mentioned article. I hope I have fixed the worst now and the article is semi-protected; but I am sure the vandal will return and 2 sets of eyes always spot more than one alone :-) cheers and thanks, --noclador (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the graphic of the Afghanistan National Army done - article I did not edit; thanks for pointing out the errors/changes in both Armies :-) --noclador (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buckshot, first: thanks for taking a look at the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan :-) second: the Russian Ground Forces:
sorry about the Army moves. I reasoned that since they are currently active RGF elements, they should be noted as such. I will not move any other Army; and in case you deem it necessary I will revert my moves. Please let me know what course of action to take here.
As for the 20th Guards, 58th and 2nd Guards Tank Army of the Moscow, North Caucasus and Volga-Ural Military Districts - to my knowledge these three armies are now the same as the Operational Command of the districts - but going through the source material I have now makes it clear that this point is formulated ambiguous... they are indeed the new Operational Commands, BUT as you pointed out: do they command the districts units in peacetime or are they only in charge in an event of war/deployment??? I will have to check that thoroughly today!
As for the sources: My main source is a young politician from Slovakia, who is aiming to become his partys military spokesman. I know him for quite some years and he is focused very much on the RGF. I told him to provide us with his sources (as far as they are public), but I fully trust him and will add all of them as soon as he returns my mail. --noclador (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Ok - whenever you should move the Armies - it will be fine with me.
2. My friend told me that according to his sources indeed some of the Armies are without assigned units and some are with. I did an update accordingly, nonetheless he will go and do another check to be totally sure.
3. He emailed me some of his sources earlier tonight: ryadovoy.ru soldat.ru mil.ru warfare.ru Russian newspapers, some publications (more on that he promised for later) and some sources inside Slovakian Ministries. He will see what we can list and will mail me more of his sources soon. For sure well within the 3 weeks :-) cheers and all the best --noclador (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry - I don't mind; I did the graphics for the District pages, but worked as always with the full army structure in one file to make the work-flow easier. As for the sheer size of it all- wait 'til you see the complete US Army diagram :-) (I probably will never uploaded it, as I even I get lost in it sometimes... ) the biggest so far is the Brazilian Army graphic. The Russian Ground Forces graphic is now on commons - so if someone is deeply into the Russian Army, he can find it there and for the MDs we already have fitting graphics. Anyway: what Army is next? Asian Armies tempt me! (especially those modeled after the British Army: i.e. Singapore, Malaysia...) and if you happen to have any info about the future structure of the South African Army - let me know! It's an Army I wish to do for quite some time now (but can't find anything on the now beginning reorganization...) --noclador (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ryadovoy.ru more sources should arrive in the next days - the problem is that he sourced from like 20 publications, combined them all and then counter checked them with each other and what he knew from work. So we will not get a single source listing all units in one point... Could that be a problem? --noclador (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Change the diagram slightly and move HQ 58th Army off to the side with no subordinate formations" Huh? I did just that at 3:32 tonight [:commons:File:Russian Ground Forces - North Caucasus Military District Structure.png] and yet that did not show up in the article at 6:49 this morning, when you removed it??? Strange... does your browser not refresh the articles every time you go there?? As for the sources I wrote him about our need for each article. --noclador (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I counted all the battalions in KOSTRAD now: 18 Infantry/Airborne Btn., 6 Artillery Btn. and 8 Support Btn. = 32 Btn. Could it be that we have a mix-up here and actually the line should read: "There were as of early 1998 a total of 33 battalions within KOSTRAD."??
Also: the sentence that follows has some errors:
"Each division contained three infantry and/or airborne brigades" - The 1st Div. has only 2 brigades.
"medical battalion" - both divisions unit lists list only a medical company
"signal company" - both divisions unit lists have no signal company listed
both divisions unit lists list a not in the sentence mentioned transportation company
Could you check for this errors in your sources??? or ask your friend if he could have a look at the KOSTRAD articles and do a correction? thanks, --noclador (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
something else - I and Michael have begun to add references for each new Russian Brigade now, probably we will have each one of them sourced within 1-2 weeks. --noclador (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
