User talk:Noclador/Archive 8

Uruguayan Army

Although I couldn't find the Army of this nation in your to-do-list, perhaps you are interested in drawing a structure of it, as there is a very actual orbat on the page I already talked to you about: http://www.saorbats.com.ar/ORBAT%20-%20Uruguay%20-%20ENU.htm

Singapore Army

To answer your question on the Singapore Amry page, visit http://www.geocities.com/mindef123/

Iraq

Take a look at this - http://billroggio.com/oob/index.php - for an OB source. Cheers Buckshot06 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Swedish Army

Check this out http://www.armehandbok.se/ny_sida_1119.htm Papastis (talk)

Historic Armies

Your army graphics are wonderful work, and I am very pleased that you are starting to make them for historic armies. Would you consider doing charts showing typical division organizations for the powers of World War II? (USA, Britain, Germany, USSR, Italy, Japan, etc.) --Lunar Dragoon (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This site [1] has realms of information on many WWII countries, both unit organizations and high level orders of battle. --Lunar Dragoon (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian Divisions

Hi I am trying to create articles for Italian Divisions in World War II see Template:Italian Divisions World War II the one problem I have found is that I can not find and English sources for divisional insignia have you any ideas or can you direct me to where I can find them ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Italian Divisions World War II we now have an article on all the WWII Italian divisions, admittedly the majority are start class, would you mind checking it over for any that may be missing --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have RS I will change the note to reflect the new numbers, I did think 7000 was very small but went with it as it was published --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cuban army oob?

Not sure if you would want to make a graphical OOB for Cuba, but I found some online sources on their military organisation: http://web.archive.org/web/20080112102807/cubapolidata.com/cafr/cafr_military_regions.html http://topgun.rin.ru/cgi-bin/texts.pl?category=state&mode=show&unit=297&lng=eng

If you don't feel like making the graphic, I would like to ask permission to make the orbat using your graphics (the NATO signs you made e.t.c.). (Wilhelm Klave (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Please remove the mountain battalion and 206th Reserve Division from Regional Command South - they do not, to my knowledge, exist. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As for Afghanistan, 205th Corps has 1st Bde, Kandahar, 2nd Bde, Qalat, 4th Bde, (note: 4th Bde) Camp Holland, Tarin Kowt, Oruzgun.

This is because 3rd Bde, 205th Corps, is now it seems 1st Bde, 215th Corps, and 1st Bde, 215th Corps should be marked as Camp Sharabak, Helmand. Corps HQ for 215th Corps is Lashkar Gar. Please add 2nd Bde, 215th Corps, forming, elements, FOB Delaram, Farah Province. Do Not please mark the whole brigade as being there, it's only 5th Kandak at the moment. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the commando brigades - 3rd MArine Commando is the bde in RC West, others, no evidence that they exist.

Hi Noclador. Please do not move the Soviet/Russian armies to (Russia) designations. They are both Soviet and Russian, and thus it is confusing if they are given a new disambiguator. The '58th Army' (no bracket) compromise seemed to work best. For 2nd Guards Tank Army, just calling it '2nd Guards Tank Army' it's the only one in the entire world, so no need for disambiguation. I'm going to change 'commands' in RGF to 'formations,' as that appears more precise. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, Moscow. Do you have any confirmation that the 20 Guards Army directs everything? If not, please make it a direct report to district as a deployable HQ - with no subordinate formations unless you have confirmed details on them. My guess is that it certainly does not direct the force in Moldova, apart from anything else. Finally please add a source for the 2010 listings - right now, if it wasn't you, I would be deleting the whole lot as unsourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Same with Volga-Urals: please list 2 GTA as only an operationally deployable HQ, with no subordinate formations (like us, they'll probably pick specific units and mix them around if any deployment is ordered) and provide a source. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I cordially HATE making unnecessary moves, so we'll leave them as they are for now. We can figure out what to do with them later.

2. Thanks for taking my point on the subordination. We really always need to be careful of assuming things that aren't in the sources.

3. Thankyou for requesting the sources. We can wait around three weeks, then if nothing has arrived we will need to revise the data according to Vad777's published data (the Brinkster.net source that you see linked at several military districts).

Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We're working simultaneously! Thanks for your message. Sounds fine. I have just had to remove your new graphic from the Russian Ground Forces page. It is unusable, too complicated. Please do another one that goes only to Army level, and then has a brief textual note under each army: x motor rifle brigades, y tank brigades, z combat support brigades, a combat service support brigades. The detailed diagrams are fine at MD level but a whole-of-ground-forces diagram is unworkable. Hope this doesn't make you feel bad, but it's a trend I've noticed in your diagrams for some time. Kind regards from NZ, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Noclador. The main websites are simply not enough. Each individual news article must be sourced. If there's a particular soldat.ru article listing a brigade somewhere, that has to be indicated. Please ask him to do a listing per district, each individual news article or other, grouped by district. Yes, this does verge on WP:OR, but if each individual news article is listed, we ought to be able to get away with it. The ones he got from work - well, we'll listing all available news articles, and see if anybody notices the missing data, which they probably won't.

We particularly need a source for the new 100th Experimental Reconnaissance Brigade in the SKVO. That does not show up anywhere else, as far as I know. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me also clarify why I removed the SKVO diagram. We've discussed this business of no confirmation of formations all reporting through HQ 58th Army. That's my primary disagreement. Change the diagram slightly and move HQ 58th Army off to the side with no subordinate formations and I would have left it there. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see them on my browser now - all three western districts with one operational command apiece. Thanks for making that change. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Next

Take a look at KOSTRAD, the Indonesian Army's strategic reserve. Do a diagram each for 1st Div and 2nd Div - not a whole every-battalion corps level diagram - it's unreadable!! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of the 33 battalions in Kostrad. Non-Western armed forces are often organised in ways that appear very strange - if you need another example, check out the organisation of the Joint Integrated Units in South Sudan, through the link at Military of Sudan at the bottom. The citation was sourced, as of April 1998, we have no better source, and I personally know the author of the article - he's now with IISS in Singapore heading their Southeast Asia operation. I trust the data. Unless we have any better information, it behooves us to keep the full picture present, whether it matches our preconceptions or not. Thanks for all your hard work. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes to the ANA article. Unfortunately there was a mistake made at 4th Bde, 205th Corps. Should be Tarin Kowt, Oruzgun. The way it is at the moment, it's based in two provinces hundreds of miles apart. Please also remove the location reference from 2nd Bde, 215th Corps, or place the word 'elements' there - right now there is no confirmation that the brigade is concentrated there. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a few things here that we need to consider. The divisional data from the WP:RS reliable sources is as of 1998. Second the listing of units is from non-Reliable Sources - that is, Indonesian wikipedia. You cannot compare one source of data to the other; they're completely independent. No, I haven't talked to the guy for ten years- only met him about three times. Right now, I'm sorry, but that's all there is. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, the brigade at Tarin Kowt. It's not 'and'. Tarin Kowt is the town, and Oruzgun is the province. I meant to imply 'Tarin Kowt, Oruzgun.' Not 'and'. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Noclador,

one thing I have always liked about your graphics is their level of detail. Among other things, it makes them an excellent source of information. So please, do not listen to Buckshot06 telling you to avoid a certain level of detail or to stick to brigade- or division-level graphics only. Because as a consequence they lose a lot of their informational value and of their uniqueness. If Buckshot06 has a problem with your graphics being to big or unreadable (allegedly), why should all the other fans of your work suffer for it? Greetings 77.180.254.222 (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Italian army

I may be wrong about the Italian heavy artillery. However, there are no sources for any of the equiptment on the italian army artical. I used orbat for the Italian Armys aircraft, why did you revert that? Rademire2 (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Another plane crash that may interest you

This report into a collision between a US and Russian aircraft makes interesting reading. Accident gets a brief mention at Manas International Airport and a further source is used as a ref. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces

Thanks for starting to stick those sources in - appreciate it. Would you please mind adding the sources to the actual charts as well, as per the 58th Army chart? That means it is clear where the source is for the chart, because while 'Own work' does cover the making of the chart, it does not cover where the data for the chart came from. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador. Could you please break the list of sources down by district and insert them into the Commons file at the source line? Something like bulletpoints -

• chart - own work
• Krasnaya Zvezda X XX 20XX
• local newspaper
• web source

etc? That would link the specific sources directly to the units much better. Otherwise people don't know which refers to which and cannot check as easily. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tested multiple lines in the source entry for Commons files here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liberian_training_visit_to_USA.jpg Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Unauthorised use of images?

See http://grognews.blogspot.com/search/label/ORBAT. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nana Plaza

Hey, thanks for your help with the repeated vandalism of Nana Plaza by 71.197.215.61 - I'd sort of given up by pushing it into the "hazards" section as he or she is annoyingly persistent, but deletion/undo is preferable. I'm something of an irregular user, so if you've got any better ideas about how to stop that, I'd be much obliged. mr_Handy (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks again, and I'll continue to keep an eye on it as well. mr_Handy (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Army ORBAT 2010

Could you update the Australian Army ORBAT 2010 (File:Australia_Army_2010.png)? I appreciate that your expertise is in the design of ORBAT images rather than the finer points of the Australian Army, so my request is intended as constructive suggestion from someone who is very familiar with the subject. The following changes are required to update the ORBAT for Australian usage:

• Brigade is abbreviated Bde not Brig (BRIG is the abbreviation for the rank Brigadier).
• Regiment is abbreviated Regt not Rgt.
• Support is abbreviated Spt not Sup (Sup is the abbreviation for supply).
• Combat Service Support Brigade (CSS Bde) and Force Support Battalions (FSB) use the same military symbol as the CSSBs ie a rectangle with a wedge on the right side (the symbol for Combat Service support), not a straight line two thirds of the way down (the symbol for supply).
• Special Forces - military symbol does not have a box around the SF.
• Command is abbreviated Comd not Com.
• Reserve Brigades are not designated as Reserve Brigades in their title so if it is necessary to refer to their Reserve status, this should be at the end of the title, not in the middle.
• Under 4 Bde, it is the Royal Victorian Regiment (RVR) not the Victorian Regiment.
• Under 11 Bde, it is the Royal Queensland Regiment (RQR) not the Queensland Regiment.
• Combat is abbreviated Cbt, not C.
• Squadron can be abbreviated Sqn if necessary.
• Abbreviations of Australian military units do not use full stops.

DiggerHistory is a good reference source. Thanks for your assistance! AusTerrapin (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

G'day Noclador, in response to your questions: 1.Bn for Battalion is ok?

This is fine.

2.for the 3rd Field Squadron of the 9th Combat Engineer Regiment - should I write "3rd Field Squadron" or "3rd Field Squadron, 9th Combat Engineer Regiment" or "3 Sqn 9th Combat Eng Regt" or which variation thereof??? the same question applies to the 13 Field Squadron, 13th Combat Engineer Regiment and the 35th Field Squadron of 11th Combat Engineer Regiment.

Definitely 3 Fd Sqn or 3rd Field Squadron rather than 3 Sqn. As the numbering of the Fd Sqns are independant of their parent Regt, it is not essential to refer to the parent Regt but for the benefit of the non-expert, it is probably better to include the parent regt, thus 3 Fd Sqn, 9 CER. CER is how the Combat Engineering Regiments are actually abbreviated in Australia, although Cbt Engr Regt could be used as an abbreviation if required to make it a little clearer to the outsider whilst using the Australian Army abbreviations for the respective elements of the title.

3.also: I need a clear instruction as to what to do with units numbers: 1st or 1, 4th or 4 - and is there a difference between battalions, brigades and regiments??? i.e. do you write: 4th brigade or 4 brigade, 3rd regiment or 3 regiment, 7th battalion or 7 battalion; and with 2 numbers: "31st/42nd Royal Queensland Regiment" or "31/42nd Royal Queensland Regiment" or "31/42 Royal Queensland Regiment"... I saw all three variants... the less text there is, the easier it is for me to fit it in the text fields - so I always prefer to just write: 1, 3, 5, ecc. but! what is the official naming policy of the Australian Army???

Ordinals are used when writing the unit names in full but are abandoned for the abbreviations thus 3 Fd Sqn and 3rd Field Squadron. There is no difference in this for different unit/sub-unit levels. For linked units 31/42 RQR and 31st/42nd Battalion, the Royal Queensland Regiment is correct.

4.also: 7th Battery 3rd Field Regt or 7 Battery 3 Field Regt or 7 Bty 3rd Field Regt or 7th Bty 3 Field Regt... what is right?

Either 7 Bty, 3 Fd Regt (abbreviated) or 7th Battery, 3rd Field Regiment (in full)

5.16th (Aviation) Brigade or 16 Brigade (Aviation) or... ???

Either 16 (Avn) Bde or 16th (Aviation) Brigade

6.any other changes?

Not that I can think of. Regarding your response to the SF marking - I accept your rationale, although my recollection is that the box is not used elsewhere, but I would have to check my facts on this. I should note that I don't mean the unit box, just the line immediately around the letters SF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AusTerrapin (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Military of the Czech Republic

Hello Noclador,

I saw that you changed in article "Military of the Czech Republic" on 15 May 2009, Czech expenditure of MoD in terms of GDP in 2008 to 1.43%, but on the link, Czech expenditure of MoD in terms of GDP in 2008 was 1.26%, not 1.43%.

Check the link. link

Gaston28 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservation status of the Bavarian language

The Bavarian language was reported to be a 'vulnerable' language not by me, but by UNESCO experts in the Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger. If you believe they are mistaken, entries in their Atlas are open to comments and corrections, you can use a form in the map if you are interested in doing so. I actually think Bavarian fits the definition of 'vulnerable' language ("most children speak the language, but it may be restricted to certain domains e.g., home") rather neatly. I would recommend that you look further into the UNESCO atlas I linked above, and in any case leave a message in the article's discussion page, before considering again the removal of Bavarian from the list.--93.41.224.73 (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To make it short: UNESCO= wrong; I happen to live in South Tyrol and know my language and the situation first hand - vulnerable the Bavarian is not at all - it's use is growing beyond all human communications and now more and more even seeping into film, radio, TV, theater ecc. the claim it might be restricted to the home use is ludicrous - you will be hard pressed to find anyone in South Tyrol, Tyrol or Bavaria capable of speaking clear High German, as the use of Bavarian is so widespread and ingrained that there is 0 danger to the use of the language at all! noclador (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

not to forget the growing Bavarian wikipedia, noclador (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you leave a note on the article reporting the contradictory view instead of outright removing any mention of Bavarian?93.45.53.227 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I already left a comment at the UNESCO site. because I think it is better to change the error at the source. noclador (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

NRDC-IT and 3rd Army Corps

Am I right to associate it:3º Corpo d'Armata with the NATO Rapid Deployable Italian Corps? If so, would you please indicate what material I should translate to fill out the history? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You are insofar correct to associate the 3° Corps with the NRDC-ITALY, as the 3° Corps was the predecessor of the NRDC. With the change of name also the duties where changed: the 3° Corps was the reserve corps of the Italian Army during the Cold War, tasked with absorbing the reserves, while the 5° Corps was supposed to fight the Warsaw pact forces to a standstill in north-eastern Italy. If the 5° Corps would fail or in case the enemy would be able to breach the 4° Corps Northern Defensive Line (= the Alps), the 3° Corps would then engage the broken through enemy to destroy it before he could reach the vital industrial centers of Milan and Turin. There is also a German wiki article about the NATO Rapid Deployable Corps - Italy which draws a line of succession from the 3° Corps to the NRDC-IT. Also the official history of the NRDC at the Italian Armys homepage is a good source: NATO RAPID DEPLOYABLE CORPS - ITALY. noclador (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army Ground Forces

Hi Noclador, here there are some infos about the PLA Ground Forces Order of Battle. 94.39.225.22 (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/organisation/army-orbat.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.39.225.22 (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces - July

Hi Noclador, greetings hope you're well. I've had to remove the Far Eastern Military District chart as it is completely unsourced. The others are patchy but that one has no sources whatsoever. It would be good to improve this situation. Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rioni of the City of Rome

There is a discussion on whether articles on the rioni of the City of Rome should follow the naming convention for Italy, or should be treated differently. I have notified you as you were previously involved in the discussion on a Naming convention for Italian cities. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/July#Italy: rioni of Rome. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Map of which countries use Reaper

Thanks for doing the map of the countries using Reaper. It appears that PORTUGAL doesn't use it. Can you amend the map? (or the article if I'm wrong) Mike Young (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

oops - you're right! thanks for pointing out that error; corrected it now. noclador (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of battles by casualties

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of battles by casualties, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please help me Noclador - You have been recommended!

Hello Noclador

While in a discussion on the discussionpage of WikI military history, then I posted this:

"A functional tool for APP-6A, Military Symbols for Land Based Systems alternatively for APP-6B? Being in the process of making a draft for the current danish force composition, then I really need access to a tool that will enable me to draw it in the symbology of similar articles.

But i cant seem to find and/or make anything accessible work.

Any one have any ideas? Thank you all in advance. Nick-bang (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The man for this is User:Noclador in Kiev. Go ahead and e-mail him through the emailthisuser feature if he hasn't contributed recently. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)"

So from that I am hoping that it might be possible if I ask you really nice and politely - that it was possible for you to help me - please?

I realize you are busy, but I really have hit a brickwall. So pretty please with sugar on the top: could you help me finding a tool that I can use?

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards Nick-bang (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Catfish Entry

Hi, hello-- sorry, I am very new to Wikipedia, and not very good at it.

I recently made an entry for "Catfish" (the movie), and you had this to say about it (my entry):

"I threw the negative BS out - there is almost nothing known about this film, but when more than 50% of the article is personal comments and bad-mouthing of the film- that article needs clean up!"

Again, I am sorry, because I am new, but I do not know what all that means. I tried to review the original, and compare it to your critique, and here is the breakdown:

"I threw the negative BS out" - I am sorry, I was not trying to be negative. I do not know which parts you thought to be negative, and why you thought it was "BS."

To check BS, I looked at each assertion I made in my entry; here is what I came up with:

First, the original entry:

"A much-hyped 2010 film built around the conceit that the story is "true," almost exactly the same as the prior, oft-ballyhooed "Blair Witch Project.' Advertised as a documentary involving a man being filmed by his friends as he builds a romantic relationship on the social networking website Facebook with an attractive girl, and the thrilling, mysterious results when they all go to visit her (begging the question of what kind of idiot would have his friends bring a video camera along on his first meeting with a chick he met on the Internet...and what kind of idiots would go with him)."

There are 101 words in that entry. So...

"much-hyped" - there are a lot of ads for it, and the trailer is on the Apple site, and it was at Sundance. I think that is much hype. It was on the home page of IMDB, which is not inexpensive. I think that qualifies as much hype.

"2010" - that is the year it came out.

"film" - it is.

"built around the conceit that the story is 'true'" - it is, from the trailer. That is the main selling point.

"almost exactly the same as the prior, oft-ballyhooed "Blair Witch Project.'" - Blair Witch did come before Catfish, it did receive a lot of attention, and it used the same device: that the scripted movie was "really" a documentary. Okay, I should have probably used "Spinal Tap," instead, which came before either of them, but that one was in a different genre, so it's not "almost exactly the same" conceit.

"Advertised as a documentary involving a man being filmed by his friends as he builds a romantic relationship on the social networking website Facebook with an attractive girl, and the thrilling, mysterious results when they all go to visit her" - it is. That is the entirety of the trailer.

"(begging the question of what kind of idiot would have his friends bring a video camera along on his first meeting with a chick he met on the Internet...and what kind of idiots would go with him)" - it does beg that question; in fact, that is the whole of the suspension-of-disbelief that the filmmaker asks the audience to make. But, honestly, I see where "idiot" may be strong, and come across as opinion. So even if this whole sentence was opinion...that is 37 words. Much less than "more than 50% of the article," as you stated.

I mean no disrespect, but I think you did not like the tone of my article, and dismissed the content because of the tone, even though you really didn't know the facts about the article/topic, which isn't really all that fair. Again, I am new at this, but this is my understanding of the situation, so please forgive me if I am mistaken, but that certainly seems to be true.

To continue with the breakdown of your analysis of my article:

"there is almost nothing known about this film" - the IMDB page has at least four entries of people who have seen it, and, of course, the full IMDB entry, which tells a lot. Also, the trailer is on the Apple trailer site. A Google search on "Catfish movie" returns over a million hits.

"more than 50% of the article is personal comments and bad-mouthing of the film" - I think I addressed that statistic (and the differentiation of how much is "personal" and "bad-mouthing") earlier, when I counted the words and did a fact-check breakdown.

"that article needs clean up!"[sic] - All right. I can try to clean it up...but the revision you made excised a whole bunch of data about the movie that I included in my original piece. Would you see your way fit to replacing it? Or, if I tried to recreate it (without the words you don't like), would you reconsider it again?

I am sorry we do not see eye to eye on this, and that my style is disagreeable to you, and I really have to beg your patience with me, and I thank you very much for your time, it is very nice of you, and I do not mean to trouble you in any way. Thank you very much.SLOW93 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)SLOW93

Iraq

Between Iraqi Army, Iraqi Ground Forces Command and googling 'Montrose Toast', D.J. Elliott's website, you now should be able to do a graphic for the Iraqi Army. Please keep it to corps-brigade level! Do a separate diagram for each region/corps should you wish. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Latvia

Hi, I saw that you have made pictures of different country's armed forces military structures. I have exel file with Latvia's National Armed Forces military organisation structure. Maybe you are interested in making picture of Latvian National Armed forces military structure? With honnor, --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for answering me. That excel is in english only location places is in latvian, but they are wrote in caps lock, so you can see diference. I sended my e-mail address. With honnor, --Kurlandlegionar (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you make these Orbats?

How do you make these awesome looking orbat charts :D I'm looking to find a way of making them for the armed forces of the countries in the game, erepublik, and It'd be great to use the same visual style as yours :O Jan Baykara (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

it's all done in Photoshop - and it's a lot of time :-) if you send me your email address here I will send you a zip file with all the basic symbols and then you can start creating your own charts :-) noclador (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thankyou very much! :D Jan Baykara (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are in a good city to answer this :)

Hello, Noclador. You have new messages at Talk:FEMEN.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss your edits per WP:BRD. There are many issues with your edits that need to be discussed. Considering your proximity to the topic, and your personal feelings on the matter, you may want to take a step back and use the talk page to make suggestions on how to improve it rather than trying to force your changes through edit warring and reverts. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI...I've started a thread at Talk:FEMEN#Recent edits where I've discussed the problems with your edits. You are invited to participate. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Another one?

[2] What do you think? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

3rd Battle of Kharkov

Could you copy your talk page comment to the Featured article review for Third Battle of Kharkov, which needs some comments?D2306 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi

Hi, I noticed your edits on Gaddafi across numerous articles, many are fine, but quite a few seem to involve POV pushing, such as [3][4]this one also includes incorrect information[5]. You remove his title of Colonel from some and add the unsourced claim that he is a dictator in another, these actions seem to be an attempt to belittle a man. Please try to avoid making unsourced allegations and removing of people's titles in the future. Passionless -Talk 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to unify the spelling of his name; currently there are like 20+ variants on wikipedia and I change them to Muammar al-Gaddafi, which is the name of the article on wikipedia. as for your third example: yeah - I did a bit of glass-balling there. The title of Colonel he doesn't use anymore as far as I know - he is now the "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"... as for the dictator: I checked now the BBC and they keep with Libyan leader for now. I will continue changing his name to standard spelling, but will leave leader and Colonel in place where I find them. Ok? noclador (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for being so reasonable, keep up the standardization, Passionless -Talk 01:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

no problem - thanks for pointing out to recheck if he is now being called dictator or still leader. all the best; noclador (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)