User talk:Eurocopter/Archive 2

SYrian Air force

BBC sayed that the Syrians plans to buy Mig -31 with a value of 1 billion dollars how do you say that it's not 1000 fighter maybe it's more

Fair use rationale for Image:Romanian tanks chisinau.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Romanian tanks chisinau.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces

Regarding: Ranks and Insignia of the Romanian Military. I am in favour of creating such an article, although I will not participate in its creation. My interest are military OrBat graphics and I focus on that. I have two examples for you of other armies Rank & Insignia articles: Italy & the UK. Basically everything with the British Army articles is a very good guide to what military articles should look like. noclador 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can try help with this article. I made a few edits a couple of months ago, and it stayed on my watchlist. Looks much better now than back in February. What else needs to be done? Turgidson 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add some history stuff, then -- a bit more about WWI and Hungarian campaign, as you say, but let me also take a look at WWII, see if anything else needs to be said (looks pretty much OK now, though). The biggest gap in the history section, though, seems to be the jump from 1945 all the way to the present. I think there should be another subsection in there, perhaps something like "During the communist era"? As a starting point, I propose taking Soviet occupation of Romania#Reorganization of the Romanian Army, and extracting the first two paragraphs from it (maybe a couple more would be needed to complete the transition from roughly 1950 to 1989, with mention of Warsaw pact, and equipment during those days). Would that work? Turgidson 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for the delay. I'm willing to help in the future, but, on military issues, I'm more of a detail guy: while I could add stuff on certain events in history, I lack basic knowledge of the major issues (for one, I cannot tell what the relation between the Land Forces and the Army in general is supposed to be). So, yes, but not at the moment. Best, Dahn 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1) OK, I'll keep adding some stuff on history of Land Forces, as time permits -- won't happen overnight, though, just bits and pieces when I get the time. In the meantime, if you have some ideas/questions, just writing on the talk page for the article should be enough -- I have it on the watchlist, plus, that way, other people would get a chance to jump in (the more, the merrier, as they say -- well, not always!) 2) About copyright issues for images: I dunno, that's one of the toughest things to do here at WP, I never quite got the hang of it. One thing that seems to work reasonably well for me (not always, but much better than if just put something by myself) is to take an image from ro.wiki (or fr.wiki, etc), and use the permissions from there, if they are good enough to pass muster. So, question: are any of the images you need available on another wiki (or, the commons)? Turgidson 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, starting about a week from today I'll have some time and will be glad to help. Biruitorul 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am still interested. I'll be looking around to see what I can find. Biruitorul 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian-Circassian War

Thanks for supporting the above articles FAC, I'm pleased to tell you that it was successful! Cheers! SGGH ^speak! 10:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

NMS Elisabeta

I've tagged the article NMS Elisabeta as a possible copyright violation. Just thought you might wanna know.--Victor12 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on my user talk page

WikiThanks

Thanks for trying to moderate and revert vandalism on my personal user talk page. You deserve a WikiThanks!! --giandrea 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want you to know that....

The actual spending of the EU military is less than only 6 billion US Dollars

This is so because the budget of the European Union is :

€862 billion for the period 2007-2013. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Budget)

So thats 862 billion / 7 years = 123 Billion Euros a year....

The Military budget of the EU would most likely come from its EXTERNAL ACTIONS EXPENDITURE

of 4% of that figure so the total amount would be only

123 x .04 = 4.92 Billion Euros

Converting that to dollars would be 5.97 billion USD

That is considering they use the whole 4% on the military....

i have been reading the talk pages

I have been reading the talk pages, the archives, the individual talk pages of the people who commented and where is this COMPROMISE and CONSENSUS you and your giandrea is mentioning all the time?

They are all arguements with ultimately you and your side kick denying the fact that it shouldnt be there because this is a COUNTRIES page. Dont you see, every other person who visits this page from time to time gets riled up to see the EU on the list? It shouldn't even be there even for the reason of "statistical purpose". Let me explain why and how we feel.

Think about it Helicopter man, you're actually a lot smarter than giandrea is; if we had a list for lets say POTABLE LIQUIDS, shall we put CRUDE OIL on that list too because though it is not Potable, it still is a liquid and furthermore, for "STATISTICAL PURPOSE ONLY"? Wouldnt you be pissed too if you saw that on a list of POTABLE LIQUIDS? Thats exactly how the people here are feeling, its not that we dont like the EU, its just that it shouldnt be there. I know that your smarter than that. I am also aware that a person from England got sore from seeing the EU in that list.

I am dead sure that you really dont need another lecture but think about this; if the US and your country had an unresolvable conflict and US decides to vaporize your country to milk duds... do you think that the EU can order the United Kingdom to counter attack the Americans? That sounds stupid right, considering they are a happily married couple (UK and the US).

So you see, getting a calculator and adding the member states spending is really idiotic. I think your better than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.1.104.76 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Maastricht Treaty?

I think once again you missed the point of that provision... All member states should help if a member is under attack in the manner they believe that it would beneficial for their state to help not always with combatants.

Lets put it this way, if i were the president/ PM of the Republic of the EU and Romania had an unresolvable conflict with the US and the US would vow to decimate all of Romania. Instead of sending the British the French and the Germans to their utter doom against the US killing war machine, i will just send ROMANIAN forces since they started the beef.

The UK would probably only help by not allowing US warships near british seas not necessarily send their battle groups to their obliteration. THE UK WILL NOT SIDE WITH ROMANIA OR THE EU FOR THAT MATTER WITH A MILITARY CONFLICT WITH THE US.

And your right helicopter man, the US will never even bother with Romania, its so small and insignificant economically, geographically and militarily even the pacifist military of Japan can break the romanian military without sweat in a matter of hours.

you are weird helicopter man

There is an apparent consensus the EU does not belong here.

Dont you feel discriminated enough already helicopter man? There are a lot of people who already made this personal on you from the talk pages and started insulting your nationality.

I know about Romania, I know that it produces less than Singapore which only has 5 million people and a country only 1/8 the size of New York City. Its economic relevance could be debated as it produces virtually no known consumer product outside its country.

I already gave a discussion that the EU spending is less than 6 billion dollars only if you care to read the talk pages. Since there is no reply i see there is a consensus!

a consensus! <---im doing a helcopterman and gaidrea impression

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.23.115.66 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Greetings

Hi Eurocopter tigre

Thank you very much for awarding me the WikiChevrons today. I'm sorry I did not come and thank you sooner, but I'm in the middle of a horrible fight with an user:Gon4z that we had to report for the 5th time in 2 weeks for vandalism, insults, threats, 3RR,... and more.
Regarding the article "Romanian Land Forces", it is a good article and it gets better by the day and that is only thanks to your tireless efforts. But I must cide you a little bit for proposing an article for GA review you contributed to. Personally I would never do that- I rather be surprised one day (like with you awarding me the WikiChevrons :-) I think we will need to work more on the article, but then it will be an excellent article, especially for all the very good pictures you inserted. If I can help you, feel free to ask for it. Right now I would like to ask, if you're sure about 1400 Tanks? This is more than Italy, France and Germany together (!) field. Keep up the good work, and all the best. noclador 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your answer:

• Re. Good articles, the problem with the advancement of articles is that there are so few people that do this work! I've written in excess of 20 big articles and am still waiting for someone to notice and propose a GA review. But I do not care about it, as I understood, that this is something that too few Wikipedians work on. I think a taskforce to do just that would be needed.
• Re. Tanks: Germany fields 457 Leopard2, France fields 406 Leclercs (all AMX-30B2 have been retired) and Italy fields 200 Ariete and 54 Leopard1-A5 (will be retired this year), so together this makes 1,117 Main Battle Tanks. Therefore I was surprised at the number Romania fields. I checked the military Balance report 2005 now and there it says that Romania fields: 717 T-55, 314 T-85M1 and 227 TR-580 or in total numbers 1258 Main Battle Tanks. Maybe you want to include this numbers in the article- I will not, as you are clearly the expert here and I trust your sources and judgement more, than the two year old source I have.

best regards, noclador 10:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alpini: I just saw what you did with the Alpini article and I must say- much better now :-) especially the new listing of the units is fantastic. I immediatley asked a friend to contribute the missing units coat of Arms to include them in the article. Regarding what the template on the Talk:1 Alpini Regiment I like the template too. I was unsure if it was necessary to include the decorations. I posted the template noe onto the artile page and I will edit this into the rest of the Alpini articles. noclador 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, I want to say that you did an awsome job on the Romanian Land Forces article. And it certainly deserves to be a GA. I was interested in the past about the subject and did contribute as much as I could to it (albeit it does not even compare to your tireless efforts as well as noclador's which made the article what it is now).

You seem to be very informed about the subject and I had a few questions: do you think we should change the number on the List of countries by number of active troops, from 90.000 to 75.000 since only 75.000 are the actual troops - the rest being just civilians working for the MOD? There's another confusing thing here, and that is about the fact that the MOD plans for a force of 80.000 in the future.

Also, do you know anything about the exact numbers of active troops and territorial troops inside the Romanian land forces itself (I imagine that the territorial brigades include the territorial troops and the operational brigades the active troops)? Dapiks 22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alpini

I just returned home and read your msg. I tried to have a look at both, the 25/20 and 20/15 versions and then I tried 25/15 and I was quite unsure which version is best... but I think that 25/15 is best, as this differences the Brigades very well from the rest and as we do not have Coat of Arms for all regiments (yet) this also does not change the spacing between the lines of text as does the 25/20 version. I posted all three version in the talkpages and asked for comments; noclador

re. 4th, 6th and Aosta: no they are not. They are under direct command of the COMALP- as is the Tridentina Division staff. (As they are special Forces: 4th=Ranger, 6th=Training + Climbing/Skiing and Aosta=High Altitude Training + Warfare) they are kept under direct command of the COMALP. noclador 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a graphic of the COMALP structure: here noclador 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the articles to which I created almost alone (90%+) are on the German Wikipedia (i.e. de:Massaker auf Kephallonia or de:Georg Klotz . On the English wikipedia I almost only contributed to the Army articles making the tedious task of digging out the unit lists like this or this. So I don’t think that putting these very specialized articles up for GA makes sense, as there is no narrative in them- just facts. So, even though I made for almost all (approximately 30) Armies charts, articles and graphics about their structure (it was a lot of work) it doesn’t pass with the GA criteria… But I’m working very, very hard on the Alpini project- first I will do the regiments and battles and then I will merge all this info together on the main article “Alpini”. Also I have a clear goal: October 15 will be the 135th anniversary of the founding of the Alpinis and I want to make the article so good, that it will be on the Wikipedia Main Page- Minimum must be “On this day” category, but the dream is to be featured article :-)

Hi, I just came home and saw what you did- every contribution you make- is good and! makes sense :-) Just one little thing- Tridentina Division and Tridentina Brigade have diffrent Coat of Arms! therefore, your addition to Tridentina Div. was correct (I didn't even know that we have a coat of Arms of the Tridentina), but for the Brigade the other symbol is correct. So I changed that back, best regards noclador 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re. what you added- these are collar patches that are worn on the uniform, but nor Coat of Arms. The Coats of Arms of the missing units will be available soon- I'm working on it and two Italian users are lending me a hand. In 1week we will have all coats of Arms. I updated the Romanian Army Graphic- I missed that you had changed something. Next time you add something- leave me a note and I will update it immediately. noclador 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Articles

I appreciate you're enthuasistic, but the articles you are passing do not meet the good article criteria, I'm going to take English Reformation to review right now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I just wanted to touch base with you and make sure you know that at least one editor (ME) wants to keep you around reviewing Good Articles. I would have never called you out by name as some other editors have done, and I want you to know that my suggestions at WP:GA/R for improvements to English Reformation and to understanding the GA requirements in general were done with the hope of improving that article to GA standards and with helping you become a better reviewer and editor. Look, we all made mistakes when we first started doing GA reviews, myself included. I am sure that I made many mistakes in this endeavour; indeed all of my early attempts to do ANYTHING at wikipedia were quite embarassing. However, I learned how to do it better, and that is all I want to encourage you to do. Take this process as a learning experience. I want to see you continue to review Good Article Candidates. Rather than dropping out of the process, just do it better. That's all. Good luck and happy editing. As always, if you need any help with anything, or have any other comments to make (including telling me "Shut up you loser and leave me alone") just drop a line at my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thnx for ur answer. The reason why I was asking you about that, was b/c I guess I was looking at how the UK Military is presented - they do not count civilians in the number of active troops (that's why I asked whether we should say 75.000 instead of 90.000) and they do not count the territorial troops. However, I was looking again at the UK case today, and their territorial troops seem to be organized into a separate Territorial Army, unlike the Romanian territorial troops which like you mentioned are part of the active troops. Also I would be glad to help with your to-do list. Dapiks 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Silliness and incivility towards Hackney...

Please stop. This silly little thing, where you each continue to make little digs on each other, is getting incivil to the point of being mutual personal attacks. Let it go. He is equally at fault as you are, but there is no point in continuing this line of mutual incivility at WP:GA/R. It adds nothing to the discussion at all, and should stop at once.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Charizard

I saw the criteria, What is Charizard missing? Anubiz 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

hello

received your message, although I don't really understand what It means. Anyways, nice to meet you.

Romanian Land Forces structural graphic

I changed the graphic to your data. The MP btn and so on I found on a graphic on the Englisg site of the Romanain Land Forces. I hope that the graphic is now fine, if not- just tell me. noclador 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Red Army

I moved away from all my sources, notes, and references in March (moved to France to start a French language course), and since then I have not been able to improve the Red Army article substantially. There's no way I can put a timetable on citing everything, though I'd like to improve it to A-class status eventually. Maybe you could find a few refs, since you nominated it? Buckshot06 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RoLF structure

Hi, I had another question. I see that at one point you had these paratrooper bat'ns under one of the brigades, but a subsequent graphic had them erased. Is that an error or are those bat'ns due to be disbanded? Thanx. Dapiks 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I did propose it but I think further work is needed on the graphic and current structure. I did some research on the paratrooper bat'ns. The 495 is def. still around. Check out these sources: [1], [2] and here is something about the 498th bat. saying that it is not scheduled to be disbanded [3]. Same for 60th paratroopers --> [4]. I think those bat'ns should be reinstated in the graphic. Dapiks 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the MiG-29, Variant part.

Well came up with this idea, not sure who to tell. Recently I am trying to work on the MiG-29, mainly on the variants. I found that an active model of military aircraft will have endless variants before they retired. So I suggest you can create a templet/tag for editors to show last update date and time instead of a "This article or section needs to be updated". Just my two cents. :) ChowHui 17:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning: List of countries and federations by military expenditures

Hello, you appear to be in danger of violating the three-revert rule on List of countries and federations by military expenditures. In fact, if you edited the article as User:87.48.118.238, as seems highly probable [], you have already violated the rule. Please discuss changes on the talk page, rather than engaging in an edit war; if you continue to revert, you may be blocked. Also, when you are in a content dispute, please do not describe other people's edits as "vandalism"; content disputes are never vandalism. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurocopter tigre, if you're not that IP then you didn't break the 3RR, nevertheless you need to be careful of the rule. Edit warring is not a good thing, even if you're on the "right" side. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, talking about the Arbitration Committee is a pretty ridiculous overreaction at this point. If you haven't broken the 3RR, you have nothing to worry about; if you understand the rule, then you won't break it in the future; no problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurocopter tigre I did not remove the EU, NATO, and the world from the list. All I did was move them to a seperate section so it is less confusing. The EU, NATO, and the world are not countries and it is strange to put them under list of countries so I just moved them to a seperate section of the page called supernational military organizations. Infact you should be grateful people on wikipedia humor your obession with the EU and allow you to keep it on the list since it is not a supernational military organization and the EURFOR budget is nowhere near that high and whenever somebody tells you this you and your buddy User:Giandrea say it is vandalism or a personal attack. Wikipedia has a policy that doesn't allow ownership of artices and you and Giandrea violate this policy everytime a user besides yourself and Giandrea edits the page, even if it is constructive, you two revert the person's edits if it doesn't meet your POV. There was nothing wrong with my edit, I just moved "Supernational military organizations" to a seperate section to reduce confusion. If anything you and Giandrea should be blocked for tag teaming to aviod being blocked, systimatic bias, ownership of articles, and reverting constructive edits. User:Daniel Chiswick 23 May, 2007.

Also I suggest both you and User:Giandrea read up on this [[5]] User:Daniel Chiswick 23 May, 2007.

Here are some examples of when you accuse people of personal attacks and vandalism for telling you the truth [[6]] [[7]][[8]]. Bringing up valid issues on your talk page is not a personal attack and sendind people warnings for doing so is a personal attack. User:Daniel Chiswick 23 May, 2007

Hi, I am bothering you again about the RoLF. I have noticed that there is a "lupii negrii" bat. that is part of the Iasi brigade (4th Corps). Do you know whether it still exists and if so is there a chance we can add it to the graph? Cheers.Dapiks 04:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I found a source, unless it's too outdated. Here it is, you can check it out as well: [9]. It states all the sub-units of the 34th infantry brigade (which hopefuly we can get neclador to add them to the graph) but it makes no ref. of the 151'th and all other sources that talk about the 151th in ceremonies or the like, also talk about the Iasi 15th Brig. It also says, in the pdf file i gave you, that there is a 495 Infantry bat. that has 2 companies from the 495th paratroopers. So does that mean that the 495th paratroopers no longer exists?? Or is this info outdated?

Another thing is this [10], which states of two bat. 300 infantry and 284 tank bat. which belong to the 282nd brigade. I also know there is another Bat. 281 Infanterie „Vulturii Îndrăzneţi" in Braila. Do you have any idea to which brigade they belong to? Again just as before, I am not sure whether this is old info or not. Perhaps you could tell me.Dapiks 15:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Bun, am mai adaugat ce am mai gasit la Brigada 34 Infanterie,
2. am schimbat numele batalionului de logistica de la brigada 2 Inf. Mec., (din 166 in 116) si
3. am creat un articol pentru Brigada 10 Geniu la 10th Engineer Brigade (Romania). La 10 Geniu, am gasit doar 4 batalioane: 3 constructii, 72 poduri, batalionul de nave-treceri-fluviale si 96 geniu (nu stiu daca mai exista si altele - poate stii tu mai bine).
4. am mai creat un articol nou la 1st Logistics Brigade (Romania) iar pentru brigada logistica am gasit aici [11] 3 unitati subordonate: batalionul 1 transport, batalionul 5 medical si batlaionul 102 mentenanta. Poate mai stii tu altele?
5. De asemenea am gasit o sursa aici [12], despre B. 281 Infanterie „Vulturii Îndrăzneţi" in care este clar mentionat ca apartine de Brig. 282 Mech Focsani.
6. La Corpul 4 Armata Teritorial, am incercat sa gasesc cate ceva dar acolo am avut mai putin noroc. Nu sunt sigur dar cred ca bat 24 face si el parte din Brigada 61 VM. Am mai dat peste niste unitati si anume 317 Cercetare, 400 Deservire si 55 Transmisiuni (care intr-o sursa apare ca transmisiuni iar in alta ca divizion de artilierie AA): vezi aici [13].
7. La Corpul 4 Armata, am mai dat peste o unitate: Divizionul 817 Artilerie dar nu stiu unde ii este locul. Poate poti tu sa ma ajuti aici.
8. Am facut update-ul la fiecare dintre aceste pagini de mai sus, si de asemenea am completat articolele 4th Army Corps si 1st Army Corps, deci tot ce trebuie neclador sa faca e sa adauge la grafic batalioanele noi care apar in aceste 2 articole.
9. Chiar si asa, au mai ramas doua brigazi despre care nu avem nimic: 69 artilerie si 4 Geniu, ambele din Corpul 4 armata teritorial.
10. Inca ceva: am dat peste o Brigada Logistica 122, dar nu stiu de cine tine.
11. De asemenea, mai stii vreo unitate sau batalion de tancuri (fiindca doar B. 284 Tancuri din brig. 282 mech iasi, pare cam putin ptr. o armata de 75.000 de oameni).

Numai bine.Dapiks 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Am mai dat peste ceva aici [14], la pagina 6. e mentionat ca Brigada 6 Artilerie Antirachete a fost desfintata in 2006. Nu cumva Regimentul 53 Artilerie AA - Medgidia face parte din Corpul 1 Armata iar 50 din Corpul 4 Armata, cum ar reiesi din structura fortelor terestre chiar de pe pagina oficiala a FTR [15]? Dapiks 15:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Despre parasutistii din corpul 4 armata teritorial nu am prea gasit nimic. Dar uite ceva interesant despre bat. de PM -> [16]. In martie 2006 abia se vorbea despre formarea unui asa batalion. Cred ca motivul ptr. care noi nu gasim mai nimic despre unele unitati, din corpul 4 armata e fiindca ele abia acum se formeaza. In orice caz, am impresia ca linkul de mai sus [17] de la pagina fortelor terestre romane e de fapt structura la care vor sa ajunga.

Inca ceva, cum se traduce in engleza "batalion deservire"? mrs. Dapiks 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Exact la asta ma gandeam si eu. Oricum, cred ca si asa ar trebui sa vorbim cu noclador ca sa schimbe graficul de la Romanian Land Forces, fiindca avand in vedere schimbarile de ieri si azi, cel actual nu e la actualitate. Dapiks 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Ok. Am gasit aici o sursa [18] in care bat 32 mircea apare ca tinand de brigada 2, nu brigada 81.

1. Ca sa-i fac viata mai usoara lui noclador, am completat chiar eu graficul. Batalioanele noi apar in BOLD. Tot ce trebuie el sa faca e sa schimbe graficul lui. Spune-mi daca am omis ceva.Dapiks 20:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces Structure

I just made the changes to the provisional graphi. Here is another source for the 81st Bistrita Brigade [19]. So it only has 3 mech inf. btn's. But i wonder if it also has a logistics btn. since all other brigades have one? Dapiks 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

52nd Engineer Btn. "Tisa" is def. part of the 4th army but I am not sure either. It might be also part of that mysterious 4th Eng. Brigade. Here is a source making ref. not only to the 52nd but also to a Bridges Btn. [20]. I'll try to find more right now. Can you try to see if the 81st Mech. Brg. has a logistics btn. as well? Cheers.Dapiks 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I could not find much about either the 52nd or the 136 Bridges Btn., except that they do belong to the 4th Army and that the 136th is a territorial btn. not an op. one. Here is the source [21]. I think we should transfer them both to the 4th Eng. Brigade, until we can find out more.Dapiks 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I found some new stuff on the 81st Bistrita Brigade here [22]. It seems it also has a tank btn. Cheers.Dapiks 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on User talk:Daniel Chiswick

Hi Eurocopter,

I'm sure that you did not intend this comment [23] as an insult, but it's probably not helpful to keep on bringing up Daniel's age and the fact that he's committed some vandalism in the past. Please try to keep your comments to him limited to the content of articles, and I'm sure you'll both get along better in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces

I just came back from my short break and saw that you added units to the Romanian Land Forces- I will update the graphic first thing in the morning, but now I head to bed (it is 4:30) thanks for the update in the meantime noclador 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I updated the graphic. I added only units that I found in the specific Brigades articles. When you add/change something with the structure, please leave me a little note on my talkpage and I will update the graphic again; best regards noclador 11:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

166th -> 116th fixed :-) noclador 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Romanian Land Forces

The article Romanian Land Forces you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Romanian Land Forces for things needed to be addressed. Good luck, Victor12 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixes for Romanian Land Forces

Hello, just one small suggestion... instead of marking issues resolved as fixed you can use the following templates Y or  Done, which look better. Anyway, great job so far! Greetings, --Victor12 13:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces - Lead

I've just checked the new lead and it looks better, however it needs further copyediting. For instance:

• The Romanian Land Forces participated in the World War I, "the" should be erased
• and won the famous battles, famous battles looks like POV, are they famous outside of Romania?
• In most of the World War II (until 23 august 1944), "In most" should be replaced by "During most", "the" should be erased, the date needs to be wikilinked
• the Romanian forces supporting the Axis powers, fought..., should be "Romanian forces supported the Axis powers, fighting..."
• No mention is made of the whole Cold War era!
• In 1990s (just after the revolution took place), should be "After the 1989 revolution,"
• Also, the romanian military capability was very low, "the" should be erasd, it should be Romanian with capital R
• (for example, in 1996, 60% of the equipment was inoperational due to lack of funds) this is too specific for the lead section, it should be in the body of the article
• The conscription was, "Conscription was"
• and the professionalisation, "and professionalisation"
• The full modernization, "Full modernization"

Have you checked the United States Marine Corps article? It can give you several good ideas for this and other sections. --Victor12 16:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

After checking the lead again, I have only some minor observations.

• The Romanian Land Forces are the land defense forces of Romania, this opening sentence looks redundant. For instance the British Army article starts The British Army is the land armed forces branch of the British Armed Forces, which looks a little better.
• until 23 august 1944, needs to be wikilinked like this "until August 23, 1944"
• because of the lack of fuel and training, should be "because of a lack of fuel and training"
• However, since 2000, lots of positive changes have come about and the level of combat readiness is highly growing; since 1996, this seems like a contradiction, it first says positive changes have started in 2000, but then mentions the budget started to raise in 1996.
• The first mention of dollar should be wikilinked
• finnaly should be "finally"
• Full modernization of the equipment, should be "Full modernization of equipment"

That's about it, as for wikilinked HQs, your proposal would certainly be an improvement, however IMHO, since all the names of corps and HQ deserve to be wikilinked it would be better to make the whole Present Structure a simple listing without any subsections. --Victor12 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For this you can use bold letters for Corps and regular ones for brigades like this:

1st Territorial Army Corps "General Ioan Culcer" - HQ Bucharest

• 2nd Infantry Operational Brigade "Rovine" - headquartered at Craiova
  • Three Mountain troops battalions
  • One Mixed Artillery battalion
  • One Anti-aircraft artillery battalion
  • One Logistics battalion.
• 8th Mixed Artillery Brigade "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" - headquartered at Focşani
  • Two Artillery battalions
  • Two Multiple Rocket Launchers battalions
  • One Data acquisition battalion
  • One Logistics battalion.

Greetings, --Victor12 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

that does not look bad.Dapiks 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the current listing of the units to be an excellent solution. If all units of the brigades are included the section gets too long. If we should decide to change this section I would rather suggest removing all units in the brigades and just list the Brigades to get the section even shorter. as i.e. the unit listing of Canada noclador 07:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

user Gon4z

As scores of other editors you had recently an “encounter” (at Serbian Air Force) with user:Gon4z. He got banned three times this month for 3rr, vandalism, unsourced editing, edit wars, insulting other users, lies and so on… I reported him today to administrator Prodego as he had to deal with Gon4z more than once too. As Gon4z is currently editing unsourced material into articles and accuses anyone that does not agree of “vandalism” or “racism” I think a longer ban is required. You can find my report about Gon4z (and a list of “deeds”) to administrator Prodego here. If you have any negative experiences with Gon4z or an opinion to add I would welcome your contributions. Thanks and best regards noclador 01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

MiG-35 article

Hello

I'm Aviafan, new member of Wikipedia project.

I was editing Strizhi article about 2 months ago, and edited Mikoyan_MiG-35 article yesterday. I added information that I was absolutely sure about, the info was taken from direct sources. Other information I'm still not sure about I'm not touching.

Though the person ChowHui said in edit comments that "I should let others to judge"

Could you, please, advise, how is it going in general? I know a little bit about Wiki, how it goes technically, but I'm quite new in terms of community and discussions, I would appreciate your help a lot.

Thank you! Pavel aka Aviafan

Alpini

Their nickname is (as you already know :-) Le Penne Nere (The Black Feathers) they do not have an official motto, but each unit has its own motto. noclador 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

COMALP has its HQ in the city of Bolzano in the province of the same name. I am currently going through all articles trying to link everything Alpini on Wikipedia correctly to the specific articles. Later I intend to make a start at the article COMALP and finish the 12, 14, 15, 16 regiments (they were all 4 very short lived, so there is not much to write about them). noclador 13:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your vote at my RfA

While you are not required to, I would appreciate it if you could provide reasoning for your opposition at my RfA. Additionally, your vote will carry more weight if you provide justification for it. Thanks. Goodnightmush^Talk 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RoLF Graphic

Please list the "498th Paratroopers Battalion" - headquartered at Bacău, in the graphic. Thanks!

Done :-) noclador 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll update it on Tuesday- as I'm currently away from my workcomputer (but still carrying a Laptop around during this short holiday break, to check up daily on wikipedia :-) --noclador 10:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I updated the graphic :-) Am I interested in making a graphic of the Russian Ground Forces??? Hell Yeah!!! I wanted to since a long time, but the info was never enough! So if you help me, lets do it! :-) --noclador 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the information on the Russian Ground Forces and since I last time only the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division#Subordinate units, fighting strength and equipment has been updated to include the ncessary information. So I made a graphic of its structure... slowly we will get them all :-) --noclador 08:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Anubiz

Per, this, please don't help users who have been blocked. Once they are blocked, they can't abuse templates. However, the template which should be used by the user is the {{unblock}} template, rather than {{helpme}}. Thanks! Miranda 12:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces

Hi, I just made the 19th Motor Rifle Division. Aren't there more units?? The other two divisions I made are much bigger and I thought about not making the Div. you told me about, as I suspect, that we do not know yet half the units in those divisions...But I do them now nonetheless and we will keep updating them. --noclador 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Then let the work begin :-) For now we have:

• 2nd Guards "Tamanskaya" Motor Rifle Division
• 4th Guards "Kantemirovskaya" Tank Division
• 5th Guards Tank Division
• 19th Motor Rifle Division
• 42nd Motor Rifle Division
• 201st Motor Rifle Division

and until we hav more info- I'm gonna do the Army of Peru :-) --noclador 14:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Su-25

I have updated the Su-25 map. Keep up the good work and don't hesitate to forward requests for other aircraft that need updating, or that you'd like to see a map for, I'll try and respond quickly. Thanks! Josh 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Su-30 map updated. I really like what you are doing in the operators section of the articles: It is much easier to read and has good useful details about specific operators. Just forward me any ones you complete and I'll add or update the map there as necessary to reflect your list. Josh 15:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

MiG-35

Hello, I am ChowHui. I saw your edit earlier, it is not correct. MiG-35 is definitely not MiG-29OVT. MiG-29OVT is a unique plane, only one exist in this world. If you follow the news, 35 and OVT both appeared in Aero India 07, it is also obvious that 35 is twin seat, while OVT is single seat. I have a picture here: http://pilot.strizhi.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/IMG_7676_sm.jpg

The only dispute my be the engine. As it was cited earlier if you had not notice before, a link to a english translation of a video, interview of the V.Ya.Klimov plant chief designerPetr Izotov stated it was a non VT engine, RD-33MK, tho' it is possible that things changed after months.

I had reverted both of you edit in 29 and 35. Regards ChowHui 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Graphics

It is possible - Although there are so few symbols for Air Force units that the graphic would just show the organisation but almost all icons will be this: Which air force do you have in mind?? --noclador 08:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It will be finished tomorow evening :-) --noclador 10:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

done: Image:Russian Air Force.png --noclador 09:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish Air Forces

I've deleted false information. That version presented not current organisation of PAF, but proposition (not even confirmed plan) that it could look in next 10 years. Table with aircraft I've deleted by mistake. Radomil talk 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)