User talk:MarshallBagramyan/Archive 5

Message from Marshal Bagramyan

I will most probably not be able to respond to these messages too speedily left in my absence but if there are any questions, feel free to leave them. --Marshal Bagramyan 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun

Hope you enjoy your trip! -- Aivazovsky 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Hi. Please be aware that you've been named as a party to a proposed arbcom case here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. Regards, --Grandmaster 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi uploading the images to commons would be greatly appreciated for other wiki users on topic, regards. --Vonones 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man

You're right, what I had meant to say was it was the best article on "NK era massacres". The Sumgait article unfortunately represents overwhelmingly the Armenian POV, although it is fairly nice to read, it could not be considered neutral. I would actually value your input on the Khojaly article, don't change anything just yet, just make a few notes on the talk page. What we don't need is more self-serving quote pushing of the kind that has been going on recently (between Adil and Tigran). - Francis Tyers · 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Closed

The above named arbitration case in which you were named as a party has closed. The remedy is as follows: The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

You may view the full case decisions here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ring GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. The article needs fair use rationales to be added for Image:Mil-24 OpRing.jpg & Image:Operation Ring Article.JPG for its use on the article. Once the FURs are added, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. I don't see that being a problem since these are really easy to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, Nehrams2020 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stepanakert tank memorial

Hi Marshall. You know I enjoy a juicy AFV recognition quiz!

I would say this one is definitely a T-72, probably T-72BV.

The exhaust on the left side eliminates T-64, T-80 or T-84 from consideration. It has large, evenly-spaced road wheels, so it is not a T-54/55 nor T-62 with odd-space wheels (nor a T-64 with smaller stamped-metal wheels). You can also tell it's not one of the older tanks by the built-in dozer blade (hinges are visible) under the glacis in front, and rectangular gunner's sight visible in front of the open commander's hatch.

The commanders' hatch on the Soviet-legacy tanks normally faces forward, to be used as a gun shield. In the T-64, T-80 and T-90, the remote-controlled antiaircraft machine gun station faces the same direction as the open hatch, while on the T-72 the simple post mount faces the rear. In this monument, the commander's cupola has been rotated 180°, to face the machine gun forward (so the open hatch is reversed). Also consistent with T-72 are the gunner's searchlight on the right of the gun and stowage bins, but I would not rely only on superficial details like this.

The reactive armour is not the newer form-fitting Kontakt or Kaktus generation, so I would say this is a T-72AV or T-72BV.

This one is missing the row of ERA boxes below the glacis plate: perhaps they were damaged by the mine explosion, or the tank was being equipped with a mine plough or roller.

For details, compare:

T-72
Georgian T-72BV, with early ERA
T-72BM has more advanced ERA similar to this Indian T-90

Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-09-16 22:50 Z

I'm pretty sure that this one is a T-72 also, although it's a tougher call because so many details are missing or not visible in the photo (exhaust, searchlight, AA machine gun mount, barrel jacket, and even part of the the engine deck are missing or obscured).

The integrated fender bins tell me that this is not T-54/55 or T-62, but a newer tank. The large road wheels and what I can see of the engine deck indicate that it has to be a T-72. The turret shape and stowage bins are consistent. The snorkel tube is not mounted in the usual left-rear-quarter position on the turret, but I have seen photos of other T-72 tanks which don't have it in the usual position. I see no ERA mounts, so this may be an early model: T-72B or maybe T-72A. —Michael Z. 2007-09-25 07:09 Z

Armenian Genocide

What's wrong with my edit in the article? Why did you reverted it, what's the error? --Khutuck 01:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I get used to the plicies of Wikipedia :) --Khutuck 02:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kelbajar GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I see that you've edited the article in the past, so I've left this message on your talk page in hopes that you will help to fix the problems with the article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. You can see the problems that need to be fixed by looking at the review on the talk page. If these are not addressed within seven days, the article may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, --Nehrams2020 08:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

76th Rifle Division

Thanks very much for the barnstar Comrade Marshal! I wanted to ask you about this page, as a Ukrainian editor has set up an article on the 51st Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine). As the 76th became the 51st Guards Rifle Division, and then later this Ukrainian brigade, we've got two articles for the same historical formation. What I would like to do is move your great history which covers the 51st Guards Rifle Division into the other page, retaining a link - any problems with that? Cheers Buckshot06 13:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good work on thr AG article

I like what you have done. I have a question for you - of a technical nature - How does one place a POV tag on an article? For many months now I have been quite upset at the extreme POV and protectionism exhibited by editors of the Ataturk article and am considering a much greater degree of involvement over there. Of course I'll want to begin my challange by placing a POV tag on the article but I don't know how it is done. I may not go through with this but I am at least interested in how to do it - do you know how and can you tell me? Thanks for your help.--THOTH 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, user DBaba keeps deleting my posts on the AG talk page. In each case i am directly addressing suggestions that are being made for modification of the article. I want him to lay off my posts but I really don't understand how complaints are done in Wikipedia or any of the adminstrative stuff. Any suggestions you might have would be helpful.--THOTH 03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words, though I do edit a l.. well okay, maybe not lately, but that's just because I've been busy. :P Trust me, I'll know when I'm burning out on too much maintenance/not enough editing. It's happened before, it will happen again, but the important part is that it always happens before I go nuclear. --Golbez (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jalalyan

Hi Marshall - the entire subsection of Cilicia that you're referring to was submitted to the site many years ago by an anonymous author. I don't know the sources, unless they are listed - so I'm in the same boat as you. Feel free to use what is useful/referenced, but I'm afraid as far as telling you more about the texts and photos, I won't be of much help... good luck, --RaffiKojian 08:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]