User talk:Flayer/before September 2009

Replaceable fair use Image:Namermk4.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Namermk4.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 14:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Air & Space Arm

good work - thank you very much for the info :-) I will start the graphic as soon as you tell me list of bases and units is complete and I should start work. for now: cheers from Austria, --noclador (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will start to work on the chart tonight - hope to be done by Monday lunch - thanks for all the info :-) --noclador (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops there seem to be quite some errors in the chart - I will update all this once I'm back home (I'm currently in Italy) - just keep bringing all the corrections - Friday night I will update them all in one go :-) --noclador (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update done. --noclador (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

107th Sqn. typo corrected. Navy? whenever you have the data, we can start :-) --noclador (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add maintaining squadrons, aviation squadrons, and administration squadrons to all wings and Haifa over the weekend. 2nd Air Wing - being a Missile base is definitly the most secret of all Air force installations and what we already have is quite good - another question: should we add a "N" to the unit icons of the 2nd Air Wing units?? N as in Nuclear Missile unit??? --noclador (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euroleague stats

Hey man, I just wanted to thank you for the wonderful work related to the stats on the Euroleague page. It is so great that I hesitated about correcting the small mistakes concerning the steals and the rebounds, since it is obviously not your fault. Keep up the good work. --parisinos (talk) 21:5, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Namermk4.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Namermk4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namermk4.jpg

I'd just replied when you left the message. J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IDF graphic

Hi Flayer

User:Ynhockeyhas left some requests on my talkpage to change the OrBat graphic of the IDF. As he is a IDF member like you I think I will quickly change the requested things: however I think it would be best if you could have a look at the requests beforehand and tell me if they are ok in your view. thanks, in advance --noclador (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Shana Tova to you as well :) Hopefully the next year will be at least as good as the last! -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shana Tova - thanks for reminding me about the IDF Air Force! I updated the graphic. If there is anything else to change just let me know :-) --noclador (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing military unit articles

Hi Flayer! Since you seem to be interested in IDF-related article, perhaps you'll find this new list I've compiled of some interest. These are just the missing articles for clearly notable units which I can think off my head. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I added links to the Hebrew Wikipedia for the units which have articles there. This should streamline translation, although I personally don't think it's a good idea to translate anything from there before checking other sources, because the articles are very poorly written. I think we should first use a reliable third-party publication for each unit's responsibilities and operations, and then use the Hebrew Wiki as a basic resource to find out subordination (kfifut), recent commanders, etc. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this list. I got added to Orbat.com this list [1] which adds the 143rd Armoured Division from the 1973 war plus the 240th, 146th, and 440th Divisions. Any chance of an article on those? - they're units with a really glorious history. Buckshot06(prof) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hope that you do not take that personaly. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tavor unit conversions

I would appreciate if you didn't revert my conversions and good faith edits to the Tavor without at least an explanation. It's not very courteous to the person having invested time in the article. Koalorka (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the CTAR 21 is technically short enough to be considered a carbine, but with the pistol caliber version, I agree, it may seem confusing. With regards to the ACOG, I don't believe it is supplied with the STAR 21 version as a standard sight, the STAR has the Picatinny rail and will accept sights and rings for most any other complaint telescopic sight. Koalorka (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PAK FA and FGFA

hi, its the same project. the result will be two different aircrafts will less technologicals in common. i couldnt find anything about brazils contribution to the project. as i read in an article indias contribution will be largely to composites, cockpits and avionics. (Samar60 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

i mean as the FGFA is derivative of PAK FA to be made individualized for the indian air force with less tech. similarities with PAK FA, there must be a derivative for the brazilian air force. or is it going to be the same as the russian PAK FA? would be nice if you have some information on that. according to the infomartions we have till now, it looks good the way you corrected it. let hope for more information in the near future! (Samar60 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

looks gud:) (Samar60 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

IAI Eitam

Been really busy and missed this merge. Do you think it is legitimate? I think it should have its own page as a distinctive equipment in the IAF. Please reply here. --Shuki (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IDF Air Force.png

excellent work Natan :-) I had to compare a old version with the new version of the graphic to discover where you had changed something. At first I was sceptical, if it was a good idea to let someone else work on the graphics, but now I see that if you work on them - it is a work well done :-) --noclador (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli casualties

OK, thanks, but you still need to find a reference and link to it from the infobox. Tiamut wrote this on my talk page:

"Hey Timeshifter. I noticed the battle between the 3 or 4 Israeli civilian casualties. The discrepancy between the references arises from the fact that one of the people killed in a rocket attack before the ground invasion started was an off-duty soldier. Some sources list him as a civilian and some as a soldier. I'll try to find a source that explains that, but I thought you should know that's the reason for the other editors change.

Please leave the reference URL link on my talk page if you don't know how to do reference wikicode. Or leave the URL link on the article talk page, explain the situation, and request help.

I searched for Lutfi Nasraladin and found several pages. Here is one: http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/IsraelUnderAttack/Shaar+Hanegev291208/vicLutfi291208.htm

But the Wikipedia article also needs links to pages that total up Israeli dead, and Israeli wounded. Surely some media or organization is keeping a page with a running total in Israel? --Timeshifter (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What numbers does it give? Others on the article talk page can verify the translation too. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response needed

Please respond at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Aircraft.VR _talk 07:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

512th Division

Flayer, can you tell me anything about this formation? It's not one of the armoured divisions I know. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Caracal Battalion page was wrong. Buckshot06(prof) 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDF Southern Command

Done - always a pleasure to update the IDF :-) --noclador (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Flayer for the IDF Wikipedia Corps Tag :-) I wish I could do more for Israel - anytime you need help (not just with IDF), I'm happy to help. Thanks again for rewarding my work :-) --noclador (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it makes me happy, to know that people like you do actually exist. So thank you! Flayer (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Namer - see also list

At your last edit you've added some more IFVs. I'm not sure that you need to add so many 1) because there are several out there; Warrior, former Soviet bloc etc 2) most of the IFV's I'm aware of are more heavily armed than Namer with a 25 mm or larger autocannon.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IAF's "Records and highlights"

Hi Flayer, don't you find the "Records and highlights" section of the Israeli Air Force page a bit childish, bragging perhaps? It looks like something a publicist would write. I thought it might give the page a more serious and mature outlook if the section was removed and the relevant info incorporated into the History section. As it is, some info already appears in both sections. Poliocretes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

arrow

ביטלת את העריכה שביצעתי בערך על טיל החץ. לטענתך עדיין לא ברור אם הוא מיועד ליירט טילים בטווח של 1000 ק"מ והמאמר מציין בפירוש שזה מה שייבחן, כך שלשאלהאין תוקף. אם אתה שואל באם הוא מסוגל לעשות את זה זאת כבר שאלה אחרת, אבל הטווח של הטיל עצמו הוא 1000 ק"מ ומעלה. אפשר להפריד בין טווח מבצעי לטווח בכלל או אפשר לציין שהגרסא הנוכחית היא 90 ק"מ ועתה גרסא חדשה בטווח העולה על 1000 ק"מ נבחנת (הלכה למעשה בימים אלו). מלבד זאת האלוף יצחק בן ישראל ציין במפורש עוד לפני שנחשפו פרטי הניסוי כי החץ מסוגל ליירט טילים איראניים מעל איראן עצמה. המחיקה שלך הייתה גסה ולא במקום. אני מבקש שתשנה אותה-גם לטובת הפרטים במאמר עצמו. טווח של 90 ק"מ מהווה הערכת חסר רצינית לגבי יכולות הטיל.

המהימנות של המקור שלך לא עולה בכמה מונים על המהימנות של המקור שלי. אני מציע שתקרא טוב את המקור שצירפתי. אני לא רוצה לקחת את זה ל"ועדת ציטוטים" -אבל אם זה יגיע לשם אז תגלה שאתה לא יכול להחליט לבד איזה ציטוט עולה על איזה. עיתון כמו הניו יורק טיימס, לדוגמא, נחשב למקור טוב בהרבה מהאתר שאתה מפנה אליו שאינו מתעדכן אוטומטית ומתבסס על הערכות. המקור שאני הבאתי מצוטט בכירים בצבא האמריקני-וכדאי שתבדוק את זה. --Gilisa (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1100297.html

Army Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, said the test will allow Israel to measure its advanced Arrow system against a target with a range of more than 1,000 km, too long for previous Arrow test sites in the eastern Mediterranean..."

אתה כנראה צריך לקרוא יותר טוב

"director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, said the test will allow Israel to measure its advanced Arrow system against a target with a range of more than 1,000 km"

אני בכל זאת אקח את הציטוט לאישור על פני שלך בהמשך השבוע.--Gilisa (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

טוב תשמע, האנגלית שלך כנראה לא משהו. הציטוט שלך מתייחס למערכת חץ 2 ולא ל3 ובכל אופן אני אדאג שהרלוונטיות שלו תוסר. משחקים כרצונך תעשה בויקיפדיה הישראלית.--Gilisa (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

אין בעיה.

חבל להתכווח, אני אעביר את שני המקורות להערכה ומניסיון המקור שאתה הצגת יוגדר כבעל אמינות נמוכה יותר או בכלל. המאמר מתייחס לטיל החץ בכלל ולכן לכל היותר כותרת התיבה תשתנה-זה לא מה שמשנה.

אתה רציני? הפנית אותי לפורום כדאי לקבל מושג על הטווח של החץ? בכל אופן זה מאוד לא מקובל ואין לזה שום משמעות מבחינתי. לגבי המבצעיות של החץ 3, אין לה שום רלוונטיות לתיבה כל אימת שיש דגם שטס לטווח של יותר מ1000 ק"מ-וכמו שהדגמתי ממקורות, יש. אפשר להכניס לתיבה את שני הדגמים ולציין ליד כל אחד את הטווח שלו או ליצור תיבה כללית של החץ ולציין טווח מקסימלי הגדול מ1000 ק"מ בצירוף הערה שהטווח תלוי בדגם. אני בכל מקרה אשנה את התיבה בקרוב ואם תשנה אותה בחזרה בלי להביא מקורות הולמים-מה שלא עשית עד כה, הדבר ייחשב לונדליזם.--Gilisa (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ואני מציע לך לקרוא לפני שאתה מגיב כי נראה שלא עשית את זה עד כה. קודם כל אין לי שום כוונה לכתוב ערך נפרד לחץ 3. יש ערך אחד, ששמו "חץ" ובו אמור להיות כלול כל המידע על החץ. שנית, או שאני אכניס תיבה נוספת מעל לתיבה של החץ 2, כפי שמקובל, או שהמידע יכנס לתיבה 2 שתהפוך לתיבה כללית-שוב כפי שמקובל. אם אתה תפריע לי בניגוד לכללי ויקיפדיה אני אפעל נגדך כפי שמקובל בויקיפדיה. אתה צריך להבין שלערכים בויקיפדיה אין בעלות פרטית.--Gilisa (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

תגחך, זה יכאיב אבל אני אחיה עם זה. באיזה תיכון אתה לומד אגב?--Gilisa (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2009

כן, הבנתי את הטעויות שלי ולמדתי ממך שיעור חשוב-תודה, אני ממש מודה לך. בקיצור, בוא נחכה לאחר הניסוי-האלוף מיל' וחה"כ בן ישראל כבר התבטא בעבר ש"החץ מסוגל ליירט טילים מעל איראן". תבדוק את העניין. עכשיו, או שהוא שיקר, או שיש דרך אחרת שהטילים יכולים ליירט מעל איראן או שהטווח מאוד גדול-ובכל אופן גדול מ90 ק"מ (אל תשכח שזה נתון זר ונתונים זרים מוטלים בספק תמידי). בקיצור, אני מניח שאחרי הניסוי יהיו תוצאות ואלי יתברר שטעית, ואם לא-אז אני. ואתה יודע משהו, לטעות זה לא כל כך נורא, אני בטוח שזה כבר קרה גם לך כמה וכמה פעמים.--Gilisa (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IAF patches

Hi Flayer, I noticed you were adding insignia images to IAF squadron articles after a user McKaby uploaded them to wiki commons. However, it appears that he is licensing all of these as public domain or some other flexible license, whereas I believe all of these patches are under copyright and should be uploaded under fair use (qualifying for Wikipedia as a logo). Joshdboz (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Flayer. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there as well to keep the discussion in one place. --G W… 14:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again. --G W… 14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow

Hi Flayer, I'm giving the Arrow article a try. Already started with the lead, put some things in a slightly different order. Let me know if you think I'm doing anything wrong. Poliocretes (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, Flayer! I'm not done with the article though, I'll give a few more goes. I've also got a few more ideas for the IAF page, I'll let you know when that's coming up.Poliocretes (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Your A-class review will not be closed such as it was until you expressly state on the ACR page that you wish the review to be closed. And as for shooting for GA-class: You are welcome to do that, but be aware that many articles that come to us as GA-class wind up worse for ACR because of the differences between the two. A-class is not unreachable if you are willing to invest the time and energy in the process to obtain the rank, it can be done. Trust me, I know this from experience :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gomez-Bustamante extradited from Colombia to the United States 2007.jpg

Y did u deleted the Tavor category. One of the soldiers uses a TAR-21.--Sanandros (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]