This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Buckshot06

Glad to know someone is dealing with the vandalism issue on this page. But I also wanted to flag up (amongst many other vandalism issues you are dealing with) this problem too. I have undid some POV text just now, but thought I should FYI you on this one too.

Thanks

- Ash sul ( talk) 20:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The page List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force needs a protection, like the one currently on the Russian air force page. This is due to excessive vandalism by unregistered users. I would appreciate it if you could put up a protection on the page. Thank you. Recon.Army ( talk) 09:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your advice. I single sourced the list of aircraft with this source http://www.milaviapress.com/orbat/india/index.php. I noticed it is used on the French, Italian, Spanish, Greek and many other Air force articles so its reliable like you say. I would appreciate it then if you could protect the page from vandalism. Thank you Recon.Army ( talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Discussing the header edit by me on 18Apr2010 (1107GMT), "it is the 2nd largest air force" was based on PLAAF inventory within wikipedia. So I was attempting to revert an earlier edit which say that VVS is 3rd largest behind PLAAF even though VVS has ~2800 aircraft and the PLAAF has 2042 according to the main article.

Was I wrong to do this?

Thanks - Ash sul ( talk) 20:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

re sources: we're putting them in now one by one - that will take some time. afterwards I will try to combine them into source-list on the talkpage and give that whole package as a source for the graphics. 2-3 weeks until we're done with that I hope. -- noclador ( talk) 01:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

good idea - will add the sources to the commons when all is ready :-) thanks for the tip. -- noclador ( talk) 02:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. ܥܝܪܐܩ ( talk) 04:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You must of missed my last message. Any way, thanks for your advice. I single sourced the list of aircraft with this source http://www.milaviapress.com/orbat/india/index.php. I noticed it is used on the French, Italian, Spanish, Greek and many other Air force articles so its reliable like you say. I would appreciate it then if you could protect the page from vandalism. Thank you. Recon.Army ( talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello it seams User talk:Tutu1234 is now going to deliberately commit vandalism and openly said he will continue to revert the reliable single source you and I agreed should be used for the List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force, and in its place he/she will use a number of different and obviously inconsistent and inaccurate sources instead. What can I do about this? I don't have time to keep reverting his and other edits. Also by his user talk page, other editors have had problems with him. Thank you for your time. Recon.Army ( talk) 18:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look on his talk page User talk:Tutu1234, I added a level 1 warning for vandalism. I dont know if its done correctly. can you help? Recon.Army ( talk) 18:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK mate, will do. Thanks for your help any way. Recon.Army ( talk) 21:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A.h. king •  Talk to me! 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

— Mariah-Yulia •  Talk to me! 08:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, from memory I asked you to look in on this article a year or two ago and you provided a balanced assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. As its content is currently being disputed again, I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the content and discussion and weigh in (your time permitting, of course). Thanks, Nick-D ( talk) 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything on that blog is taken from wikipedia or news sources... nothing is original stuff by the owner of this blog... but in my view - as it is a blog - it is ok if he uses our images; what annoys me are commercial sites/news outlets that take from wikipedia and do not give credit (the French RAIDS magazine being a really nasty example of stealing and not attributing). -- noclador ( talk) 00:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The change in Roundel was approved by the State Duma and signed off on by Vladimir Putin. -- Thegunkid ( talk) 18:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, You recently banned user named User:Armenian1987 but he is vandalism is still remains in Azerbaijani military articles so could you please help me to revert all his fake disinformation??\-- NovaSkola ( talk) 19:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is his contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Armenian1987

One more thing, there is user named User:Ліонкінг reverts all Azeri related to armenian or different countries, just to erase Azerbaijani related themes from there.

Good example could be seen here, where he changed references and information just to get articles more pro armenian and I am sure, if you check his contributions, you will see this a lot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabrayil_Rayon

And he also warns other Azeri users by accusing us of racism and claming he will reports us, in fact he is the one who breaches it and I am sure he is sock of some other banned user. So could u please take action -- NovaSkola ( talk) 07:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Last time we spoke you told me that you were busy and you referred me to user Nick Dowling. He didn't reply, so I waited a while to hopefully find you not busy. Could you now put that block on the article List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force? The vandalism hasn't stopped, no one sticks to the single source we agreed upon and I am fed up with having to revert the Vandalism. Thanks Recon.Army ( talk) 23:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice wrap-up of my question about the 2nd Division's existence during the Cold War. Thanks! Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 04:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I can help from time to time. I would like to finish the French divisions in World War II page as a priority. I have Poirier and Conner, plus can search on brigades in the Soviet official OOB. Do you intend to list separate brigades only, or brigades that were also integral parts of Mechanised Corps, etc. ? Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 19:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, P&C probably won't help in the case of anything smaller than divisions. Will this article be anything besides a list of units -- might be difficult to find unit histories for brigades. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 14:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As an example of a list, following are the infantry and tank brigades that were not associated with tank/mech corps or rifle divisions on January 1, 1945. Note this does not include artillery, antitank, anti-aircraft, SP artillery, etc. brigades:

83rd Naval Rifle Brigade/23rd RC/46th Army/3rd Ukrainian Front
255th Brigade of Naval Infantry/37th Army (in Bulgaria)
47th Mechanized Brigade/5th Guards Tank Army/2nd BR Front
32nd Guards Mechanized Brigade/3rd Ukrainian Front
31st Ski Brigade/126th Light RC/19th Army/Stavka Reserve
32nd Ski Brigade/126th Light RC/19th Army/Stavka Reserve
72nd Naval Rifle Brigade/126th Light RC/19th Army/Stavka Reserve
3rd Naval Rifle Brigade/127th Light RC/19th Army/Stavka Reserve
69th Naval Rifle Brigade/127th Light RC/19th Army/Stavka Reserve
70th Naval Rifle Brigade/127th Light RC/19th Army/Stavka Reserve
93rd Rifle Brigade/Trans-Caucasus Front
25th Mechanized Brigade/17th Army/Trans-Baikal Front
113th Rifle Brigade/87th RC/1st Army/Far Eastern Front
2nd Rifle Brigade/56th RC/Severskaya Group/Far Eastern Front
5th Rifle Brigade/Severskaya Group/Far Eastern Front
88th Rifle Brigade/Far Eastern Front
42nd Mechanized Brigade/25th Army/Far Eastern Front
72nd Mechanized Brigade/35th Army/Far Eastern Front

5th Airborne Brigade/Stavka Reserve
8th Airborne Brigade/Stavka Reserve
24th Airborne Brigade/Stavka Reserve

78th Tank Brigade/10th Guards Army/2nd Baltic Front
143rd Tank Brigade/6th Guards Army/1st Baltic Front
34th Guards Tank Brigade/4th Shock Army/1st Baltic Front
39th Guards Tank Brigade/4th Shock Army/1st Baltic Front
153rd Tank Brigade/2nd Guards Army/3rd BR Front
120th Tank Brigade/11th Guards Army/3rd BR Front
2nd Guards Tank Brigade/5th Army/3rd BR Front
213th Tank Brigade/28th Army/3rd BR Front
28th Guards Tank Brigade/39th Army/3rd BR Front
43rd Guards Heavy Tank Brigade/3rd BR Front
30th Guards Tank Brigade/2nd Shock Army/2nd BR Front
23rd Guards Tank Brigade/2nd BR Front
220th Tank Brigade/5th Shock Army/1st BR Front
68th Tank Brigade/69th Army/1st BR Front
64th Guards Tank Brigade/1st Guards Tank Army/1st BR Front
11th Guards Tank Brigade/1st BR Front
1st Polish Tank Brigade/1st Polish Army/1st BR Front
150th Tank Brigade/3rd Guards Army/1st Ukrainian Front
152nd Tank Brigade/52nd Army/1st Ukrainian Front
93rd Tank Brigade/4th Tank Army/1st Ukrainian Front
31st Guards Tank Brigade/1st Guards Army/4th Ukrainian Front
5th Guards Tank Brigade/18th Army/4th Ukrainian Front
42nd Guards Tank Brigade/4th Ukrainian Front
27th Guards Tank Brigade/7th Guards Army/2nd Ukrainian Front
96th Tank Brigade/37th Army (in Bulgaria)
29th Tank Brigade/Stavka Reserve
7th Guards Tank Brigade/Reserve Front HQ/Stavka Reserve
38th Guards Tank Brigade/Reserve Front HQ/Stavka Reserve
29th Tank Brigade/32nd Army/Stavka Reserve
29th Guards Tank Brigade/Stavka Reserve
1st Tank Brigade/Stavka Reserve
254 Tank Brigade/Stavka Reserve
32nd Guards Tank Brigade/Moscow Military District
149th Tank Brigade/Moscow Military District
201st Tank Brigade/Moscow Military District
232nd Tank Brigade/Moscow Military District
256th Tank Brigade/Moscow Military District
16th Tank Brigade/Belorussian-Latvian Military District
144th Tank Brigade/Belorussian-Latvian Military District
226th Tank Brigade/Trans-Caucasian Military District
227th Tank Brigade/Trans-Caucasian Military District
43rd Tank Brigade/17th Army/Trans-Baikal Military District
33rd Tank Brigade/36th Army/Trans-Baikal Military District
35th Tank Brigade/36th Army/Trans-Baikal Military District
44th Tank Brigade/Trans-Baikal Military District
205th Tank Brigade/Trans-Baikal Military District
206th Tank Brigade/Trans-Baikal Military District
75th Tank Brigade/1st Army/Far Eastern Front
77th Tank Brigade/1st Army/Far Eastern Front
204th Tank Brigade/1st Army/Far Eastern Front
210th Tank Brigade/1st Army/Far Eastern Front
257th Tank Brigade/1st Army/Far Eastern Front
73rd Tank Brigade/2nd Army/Far Eastern Front
74th Tank Brigade/2nd Army/Far Eastern Front
258th Tank Brigade/2nd Army/Far Eastern Front
165th Tank Brigade/15th Army/Far Eastern Front
171st Tank Brigade/15th Army/Far Eastern Front
203rd Tank Brigade/15th Army/Far Eastern Front
214th Tank Brigade/Severnaya Group/Far Eastern Front
72nd Tank Brigade/25th Army/Far Eastern Front
76th Tank Brigade/25th Army/Far Eastern Front
218th Tank Brigade/25th Army/Far Eastern Front
259th Tank Brigade/25th Army/Far Eastern Front
125th Tank Brigade/35th Army/Far Eastern Front
172nd Tank Brigade/35th Army/Far Eastern Front
208th Tank Brigade/35th Army/Far Eastern Front
209th Tank Brigade/35th Army/Far Eastern Front

Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is the official OOB from the General Staff. These listings are now online ( example of December 1941 online ) BUT -- I would be careful about accessing these pages unless you have good security software on your PC as they contain code that is definitely unneeded to present the information and may be harmful to your PC. I have sanitized versions of these files for 1944-45. (Sanitizing the files is not difficult, just tedious). Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 05:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, searching on "Боевой состав Советской Армии" finds many hits on the web, including the tashv.narod.ru site. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 05:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06, if I recall correctly, the unwanted code was of the sort advertisers use to track potential customers -- annoying, low-grade spyware, but spyware nonetheless. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 06:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

please insert any more at User:Buckshot06/National formations of the Red Army in World War II

will do. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 08:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue was on the article that User:Recon.Army requested page protection for but I get the distinct impression that he just reverted the anon's changes without actually looking at the source. He then left me a flippant talk comment after I pointed this minor detail out to him suggesting I think before leaving him a pointless comment. Nevertheless, I was just wondering if you could unprotect the article as it seems that the dispute seems resolved. Granted, this whole issue could have been resolved if everyone (Anons and Recon.Army) had just bothered to spend 2 minutes LOOKING up a citation but instead both sides just decided to revert war which if I may comment seems more than a tad childish as well as unproductive.

Thanks, Vedant ( talk) 11:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In responce to your question to me here I think you might be interested to learn that The Sea Breeze 2010 exercises are an important stage of the fleet's preparation for international anti-piracy operations, the Ukrainian Navy's deputy commander, Rear Admiral Viktor Nosenko, has said. — Mariah-Yulia •  Talk to me! 14:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you will agree that the Red Army is a complete jumble and you did well to find my error - it must have been like finding a needle in a haystack, thanks Harrypotter ( talk) 09:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not many off the top of my head, you have Jacky Fisher's spending, Churchill's well documented issues, perhaps the press coverage of Jellicoe vs Beatty at Jutland (and academics still debating it) but they might be a bit too specific. I am going to my library tomorrow so I will remember to take a look, I'm sure I remember looking at a book last time that I thought might be useful. Regards, Woody ( talk) 00:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert back to the last version by me undo the mass revert. The CENTAG information does not really belong in the JFC Brunssum article, other than a brief mention. It belongs in a JC Heidelberg article, which I am working on. The version that I last edited was properly sourced, factual, and reflects the current headquarters. Feel free to add information, but please do not revert the article without discussion. Movementarian ( Talk) 05:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I also started a conversation on the JFC Brunssum talk page, so that other editors can feel free to opine. Movementarian ( Talk) 05:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the naming advice. I was going to go for Force Command Heidelberg without the "Allied" in the beginning to fall in line with the other NATO articles. Do you think that is acceptable or should the "Allied" be included? A big thanks for the assist in the history section and the addition of more sources. Cheers. Movementarian ( Talk) 14:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please write a referenced summary of the subject to be included as a section in the article Soviet Union when you have time? Your proposals are welcome on the talk page there. Colchicum ( talk) 12:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't take much to move it around if anything goes wrong, so just place it wherever you like :) Thanks for your effort. Colchicum ( talk) 23:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, though I noted it had a few sources, unlike the other prodded articles. It may be worth copying some of the sources from that and related articles to flesh out what role the command had in the brief cover-up of the incident and subsequent trials to keep the article, but I realize that would be plenty of work for what will probably never be more than a B-class article at best. Let me know what you decide. bahamut0013 ^words _deeds 02:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that should you come across any questionable edits made by this user, you wouldn't be the first ones and for reasons below, I have trouble believing he acts in good faith. For one there's this discussion at the Frigate talk page and then there's this incident at WT:SHIPS. Suffice it to say, I got pretty tired of being accused of promoting Indian nationalism from this idiot and broken record. I'm also reasonably certain that this anonymous IP and User:Yattum are the same individual. If you look at City of London, London, and Trillion dollar club, you'll notice that Yattum edits the exact same sections that the IP was editing and most of these edits are only minutes apart. They also both seem to push an identical POV and make very similar claims. I shall just follow the very sound advice of WP:DNFT. ( talk) 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, on a somewhat related note, I have posted a note at WP:ANI regarding the user's disruptive edits. No one appears to have commented on it yet though. Vedant ( talk) 05:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, Sadads ( talk) 22:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And again, Sadads ( talk) 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Tuscumbia ( talk) 13:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuscumbia ( talk) 21:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks! Tuscumbia ( talk) 22:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my page. Tuscumbia ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion that the article on Special Service Battalion and 1 Special Service Battalion be merged. Having served in the one and authored the article on the other, I feel that they should not be merged. Whilst 1SSB is descended from SSB, the two are very different units. SSB was established during the Depression to provide employment at "bob a day". It was obviously comprised of volunteers and served with distinction in WW2. 1SSB was ultimately a training unit for national servicemen. This unit too served with distinction. I feel that the units are totally different in their composition and employment. I see that someone has changed the name of the WW2 SSB shoulder title to 1 SSB shoulder title. This is plain wrong. 1SSB never wore those shoulder titles. Thoughts? Whoosis ( talk) 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot, your last edit about the major dying from 40 Armd Regt while adding information is of little relevance to the article Indian Army Armoured Corps. Such information should go into the unit's article or in an article about Maj Rathi himself. AshLin ( talk) 10:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a sapper. You will surely face such problems in case of individual units as the government security regulations are very strict with regard to divulging all kinds of information. Rather than giving the comment as you have done which is not appropriate for the reason mentioned above why not give a simple ref with the link and without the comment. It will serve as an indirect reference to the existence of the unit. Best wishes for your edits. AshLin ( talk) 11:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot,

I'd like to work in coordination with you so that there is no occasion for reverting each other's edits. Here are some observations from my side.

Firstly, the Indian Army organises itself into Arms and Services. The arms comprise those who fight on the battlefield while those who provide logistic or personnel support are considered administrative troops. This is in the context of the British military tradition. You can see this fact for yourself in the Indian Army website. Hence I would like to also categorise them as the Indian Army sees itself i.e. in 'arms' and 'services'. I would like to retain this category and hence request you not to revert it.

Secondly, the combat arms, such as the Engineers to which I belong or the Signals, consider it an affront to be referred to as "administrative". Hence being naturally biased against this practice, I had removed the Engineers from that category. I see now that the Administrative Corps category is part of a group of categories from each country. So I plan to leave the Administrative category alone. Please let me know if you object to my removing the Engineers from that category.

Thirdly, you have gone to the touble of adding locations and affiliations for armoured units but in the Indian Army, units are routinely rotated after two to five years. Some of these locations were incorrect in the first place and those which were correct are no longer so. So the information value is trivial. Naturally I am not at liberty to reveal the correct information but this information is not important for the reason I told you.

Lastly, a word about regiments and corps. A corps (when not a formation) is a functional component of the Indian Army. The Regiment of Artillery is actually a corps of the Indian Army as it itself comprises of hundreds of artillery regiments. In India artillery battalions are called as artillery regiments, and they are grouped in the Regiment of Artillery (parent organisation). Hence it is actually a corps (in the context of the British military tradition). In contrast the Mechanised Infantry Regiment is not a corps as there is another infantry regiment, the Brigade of Guards which is also mechanised.

May I request you to permit me to continue my categorisation work? If you have any observations, I am only to happy to hear what they are.

Best wishes for your edits. It is easy to see that you are a really valuable editor. Perhaps I may be able to add a little context so that these edits are even more value-added. AshLin ( talk) 14:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, Thank you for your response.

• Since I cannot be expected to know what you know or what you do not know so you will have to bear with me for that. However, it is apparent that we understand things differently.
• The categorisation I intend is only for the units of the Indian Army and as per the Indian Army classification. It was not duplication as I am setting up a different categorisation scheme from your overall Wikipedia scheme of things. However, since there is already a common way to categorise the units of all armies, I shall instead improve the Template:Indian Army arms and services.
• I am the curator of a military archive in my current appointment and I use the terms "Regiments" and "Corps" regularly in the complete context of how the Indian Army uses it, and this usage is rich in nuance. Your contention that "Firstly, regiments and corps, so called by all Commonwealth armies, are effectively the same 'being,' whether you call it a regiment or a corps." is incorrect.
• In the British military tradition, the term "Regiment" means two things - in one case it is an alternate name for battalion (as in the case of battalions of artillery, armour, signals and engineers in the Indian Army) and in the other case it is the name for the parent regimental organisation of a group of battalions, regimental here meaning historic affiliation or a brotherhood in arms, examples being :

• • The Punjab Regiment (Infantry).
  • The Brigade of Guards (Infantry).
  • The Jammu & Kashmir Light Infantry (Infantry).
  • The Rajputana Rifles. (Infantry)
  • The Regiment of Artillery.
  • The Bengal Engineer Group (Engineers).

• So the correct meaning implied by the term "Regiment" will need to be discerned from its usage.
• Similarly, corps has two connotations - as a formation in the sequence brigade/division/corps/army... scheme. The other use is for the functional parts, i.e., arms and services as the Indian Army calls them. So we have the following examples :

• The Corps of Engineers (an arm).
• The Army Ordnance Corps (a service).
• The Regiment of Artillery (surprise, it is not only the regimental entity of the artillery but also the Corps as the Indian Army has no other organsation that has has conventional artillery.

• In addition, in the eighteenth century the term "corps" was also used generically to mean any body of troops recruited under a common charter or purpose or affiliation. This is most often encountered in old military history texts.
• So you are requested to reconcile your view of corps and regiments.
• Another point which I had already touched upon in my previous post, in the British military tradition the Engineers are an arm and their combat utilisation is a GS Branch (General Staff Branch) matter (not A or Q Branch). The administrative corps as we understand them are termed as "services" and include the Army Ordnance Corps, the Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the Army Service Corps and the Army Medical Corps and some others. These come under the purview of the Master General of Ordnance Branch (for AOC), the Quarter Master General's Branch for ASC and the Adjutant General's Branch for AMC etc. So including Engineers in the category of administrative corps is incorrect in the British military tradition. It may be appropriate for other military traditions, I cannot say.

AshLin ( talk) 09:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Buckshot,

To reply your query, all arms except the Signals rotate their units. No service unit does. I'll have to check which of our history books is in the public domain. I'll get back later to you on this issue. This ref and this one will answer a little bit your question about the organisation of generic engineer regiments. AshLin ( talk) 11:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please explain why you reverted me on the above article? [1] What was the reason for removal of so much of sourced info? As far as I can see, the dispute between Marshal and Tuscumbia was about the reliability of Hovanissian as a source. If you disagreed with Tuscumbia with regard to that, you could just remove the tags that he attached. But I don't think that removing so much information from the article is justified. I'm sure this happened because of a mistake. Regards, Grand master 05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. If you have no objections, I will restore the removed sources back to the article. If you do object, could you please join the discussion at talk and explain the reasons for your objection? Thank you very much. Grand master 08:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You returned the photo of a very poor quality to the article. It's impossible to understand what is shown on the picture. I think adding a photo to an article with a purpose "to add" is not a good idea. I think absence of such a photo is better than presence of photo of such quality. And the second point is that information about this unclear photo has no reliable source. So we cannot say that the photo is related to the Azerbaijani Armed Forces. What do you think? -- Quantum666 ( talk) 17:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The description of the file refers to the site http://www.armenians.com. It seems to me to be non-neutral propaganda source. And the photo is placed in "genocide" section. I think using such sources violates Wikipedia:RS and worsens Wikipedia quality. -- Quantum666 ( talk) 05:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I could find them, maybe in Russian sources. If I find one can I ask you to choose correct license to place it in Wikipedia? My knowledge of licenses is not very good. -- Quantum666 ( talk) 07:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found some photos. These are the photos of Tatiana Chaladze - a reporter from Azerbaijan. And these are of unknown reportes (information is given in English too). Have a look please. I have also asked some people to find the photos. -- Quantum666 ( talk) 09:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think these are suitable for the article: 1, 2, 3. Could you please load them with appropriate license? -- Quantum666 ( talk) 10:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the weather is better, I am actually missing the rain :( That is alright I am going to oxford in the Spring, so I am sure that I will get plenty of rain. BTW, the talkback was for the comment here Sadads ( talk) 23:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback again, Sadads ( talk) 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

One more time, Sadads ( talk) 00:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was being ellusive too, see resp. Sadads ( talk) 02:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, Sadads ( talk) 02:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a second thought in addition, Sadads ( talk) 02:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The move from B.C. Joshi to full name "Bipin Chandra Joshi" appears to be mis-spelled during the move by Aldis90. No reference for name change has been indicated. I have never heard of this spelling before either. Since I am not an administrator, I am unable to move it. Can You please do the needful? AshLin ( talk) 14:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

64 Cavalry, see Indian Army Armoured Corps. Here is a ref. Thank you for the move. AshLin ( talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The info is genuine, take it from me. He was also the Colonel of the 64th. AshLin ( talk) 07:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye out for it. I tried to find an archive online of 1993 when he took over or of 1994 when he died but failed. Will keep an eye out for it in Military Libraries but can't promise any time plan. AshLin ( talk) 07:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Its always nice to receive encouragement. Since the Armoured Regiments are battalion sized forces and so little information is in the public domain, their inclusion in the template could be perhaps postponed till more information is available. Once adequate information is available, they would warrant a template on their own rather than be included in and clutter up this one. My recommendation regarding name change of the Liberation of Ladakh (1948) will be POV. However "Liberation" or "Seizure" are both different sides of the same POV coin. So "Military Operations in Ladakh" or something similarly neutral may be more appropriate. My POV - as such while it is claimed that J&K is "disputed", the accession of the State was to India and the atrocities by the tribals are documented and well known, the Indian Army protected the people not oppressed them. The story is interesting and part of it can be read here for free. However, that is neither here nor there. As I never have enough time to even edit on my first interest, butterflies of India, I would probably not have any time to spare for Engineers of other nations especially where I may have a POV on it. AshLin ( talk) 03:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another point, each armoured regiment, whether bearing an old historic name such as "Deccan Horse" or a new one such as "51 Armoured Regiment" are all "regiments" in that they have their own Colonel of the Regiment for each unit. AshLin ( talk) 04:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would understand that 2 Royal Tank Regiment would mean 2nd Battalion RTR but I am told tankers are averse to their units being referred to as "battalions". :-) AshLin ( talk) 05:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

He he he. AshLin ( talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In Indian Army Armoured Corps, I suggest that the miscellenia be moved into footnotes. Could K. S. Thimayya (shortened initials) be moved to Kodendera Subayya Thimayya (full name) as is the case with all other Army chiefs? AshLin ( talk) 09:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the redirect is blocking. Could you please delete that so I can move it myself? AshLin ( talk) 10:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Before Hornet showed up warfare.ru was the only ref used and listed active ships of the Russian navy. Hornet then decided to add reserve ships among active ships. I have no problem if Hornet can provide a ref to those ships in reserve and/or long-long overhauls, I know very well the workings of Russian naval ships. Russian navy tends to leave older commissioned warships docked up with little or no crews, weapon systems disabled, with little military capability - on a long list awaiting an overhaul or purely sitting in reserve.

Now I have no problem to include these ships, but Hornet adds these ships among the active ships and doesn’t provide any refs.

The thing is these reserve ghost ships get forgotten due to their in-activity, and as such it can be hard to find a ref for them. So I would suggest maybe removing those reserve ships from among the active fleet listed by warfare.ru and put the reserve ships in a separate section towards the end of the article. Recon.Army ( talk) 22:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you actually look at the source in warlords in muslims which says EXACTLY WHAT I WAS ADDING, WHICH CLAIMED THAT TUNGANS (cHINESE MUSLIMS) MISTREATED LEADING UYGHUR CITIZENS

THE SOURCE "WARLORDS AND MUSLIMS" BY ANDREW FORBES SAYS THAT FLEMING DESCRIBED TUNGAN INSENSITIVITY TOWARDS LEADING UYGHUR CITIZENS IN HIS BOOK "NEWS FROM TARTARY" ON PAGE 308. THEY REFERED TO THEM AS TURBAND HEADS, WHICH IT SAYS IN THE BOOK BY WARLORDS AND MUSLIMS.

READ THIS EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK ON GOOGLE BOOKS- [2] . Дунгане ( talk) 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You know what, i should have put the Warlords and Muslims reference first, before News From Tartary, because it made clear in that book on what he was describing in News From Tartary. Дунгане ( talk) 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And i already revised my edit to say "insensitive", instead of what was on earlier which you reverted. My edit was changed, did you bother to look at the new difference, or did you assume i put my old edit back? Дунгане ( talk) 17:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, No you got me wrong. I did not say "all" resistance / partisan movements were communist-led. I simply referred to "communist-led resistance movements", so there's no need for me to justify my words. There were of course populist (i.e. non-communist)resistance groups as with Force 136 in Malaya, and a populist group in Greece, and nationalist resistance elsewhere e.g. China, before the split with Mao. Non-communist groups, however, were ineffectual and NOT a fighting force worth considering by comparison with the communist-led groups (which to some extent also had some populist members, and in Italy they also had devout Catholics as members). British SOE cut off arms supplies to the communist-led groups in favour of supplying the populist groups towards the end of the war, with a view to diminishing post-war communist influence in Europe and Far East. The sources that I provided in the disputed article that was reverted are relevant. But there are many other reliable sources on this topic, which I can provide if necessary. Thanks for your interest. Regards. Communicat ( talk) 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

When you do this, please do not forget to do the same with the talk pages of those articles which you are redirecting. In just your last few I've identified talk pages you did not touch: Talk:Soviet submarine TK-210, Talk:90th Indian Infantry Brigade - MBK ₀₀₄ 12:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Do you know if East Timor currently has military conscription in place? This 2008 UNHCR-sponsored report says it was introduced in 2007 but the CIA World Fact Book says that there was no conscription as at 2008. Nick-D ( talk) 07:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Short answer - no. RS: http://navfacpacific.us/Timor%20Leste/.../Timor%20Chief%20Brief%20APR10%20v1.ppt.

I spoke to an official in the UNMIT Security Sector Support Unit in April-May. The force size is ~717 + 579 new recruits from December 2009, minus 11 deceased. 150 of those new recruits are going to the naval component. Those recruits (implied) were volunteers; as you wrote yourself, thousands tried for the few spots in the 2nd Battalion earlier. Much of that should be reflected in the link above, which is a powerpoint briefing from the chief of the U.S. Office of Defence Cooperation at the Embassy in Dili. TMR is now a Major General; Lere An Timor a Brigadier. A third battalion is under consideration and the force size aim is still 3,000 by 2020. Note in your link that there is no confirmation that this legal provision is to be enforced; like the Selective Service System in the United States. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot for that (and for the very useful link). It's proving rather interesting updating the F-FDTL and Australian Defence Force articles at the same time! Nick-D ( talk) 09:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Done (though it's pretty similar to the US Embassy's report on its engagement with the F-FDTL during 2009 which I've been using as a citation). Nick-D ( talk) 10:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I hope that you don't mind me undoing this edit, but that is the figure the IISS gives for just the 'Army' (with an additional 82 for the Naval Element). Nick-D ( talk) 11:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your revert. Let me explain why. Effectively there is a single armed service, with two battalions and a whole bunch of company sized units, including the HQ and the logs & comms units, and the navy. The navy has always been roughly company-sized (ie ~120). So separating the 'army' and the 'navy' is a mistake. The IISS data is not very good quality; here it is downright misleading. The U.S. Embassy figures of 719 + 579 for the entire armed forces match almost exactly the UN figures I quoted above of 717 + 579. The difference may be in the way they account for deceased soldiers. Both are 2010. On the other hand, the IISS figure, 1250, is an approximation they may have found from ANYWHERE. They've just released their three armed forces analysts and have just the editor of the MilBal at the moment. I usually use their data as a first rough cut for anywhere, not something to rely on. In this case, 1250 + 82 would put us over 1300, which is well outside the other two figures. Thus I would strongly recommend that in this case, with better data available, we do not quote the IISS figures on the size of the armed forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that sounds very sensible. Thanks for the background knowledge! Nick-D ( talk) 07:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Buckshot. Would you mind taking a look at the changes I've done to the 28th Combat Support Hospital (United States)? I had some spare time, so I thought I would try a rewrite. Would you mind adding your opinion (whether it is still delete or if it has changed to keep) on the AfD also? The link is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28th Combat Support Hospital (United States). Thanks. AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I found some more information, Sadads ( talk) 12:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Another one, Sadads ( talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Northern Command of Indian Army was formed post the 1971 Indo-Pak War. As such this article needs renaming as it had completely gone to Pakistan. What do you think? The insignia is inappropriate for this article. A new stub is required for Northern Command (India). What do you think? AshLin ( talk) 08:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not restore a removed Prod tag as you did on the article 27th Transportation Center (United States). Once a Prod tag has been removed from an article it must not be replaced or re-prodded. If you still believe that this article should be deleted then take it to AfD. Inniverse ( talk) 03:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not come to my talk page to falsely accuse me of harassing behavior. I do not believe that there was a clear consensus in the AfDs, and am following policy to make my argument. Likewise, I do not agree that there was a clear consensus to delete shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/54th Military Police Company (United States). Do not post any more messages on my talk page. Inniverse ( talk) 13:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Inniverse ( talk) 03:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot, I hope I didn't scare you away with my comments on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Armed Forces of Liberia. Apologies for the long list of comments, please do not take them to mean that I don't think the article is any good. I'm fairly happy with it, but thought I should list absolutely every thing I could find no matter how minor, that way once fixed we could be fairly confident of it passing. If you want, I'm happy to help fix the issues identified. If I did that, though, I'd probably have to refrain from voting, though as I would probably be seen as an involved editor. Let me know what works best for you. Cheers. AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Warlords and Muslims book, it says to look to page 308 of Peter Fleming's book [3] Where it says Fleming described Tungan insensitivity towards leading Uighur citizens. The fact is that the Tungan general did show insensitivity. You claim i twisted the source racially against a group. I made a mistake in detail, not in the general claim that The General showed insensitivty against another race.

This would just have been if someone accidently copied or mispelled a name, or a statistic when copying from a source. You claim as if i deliberately changed the meaning of the whole sentence, and that the whole racism claim was false. It does not change the fact that racism was shown by the General, as the book Warlords and Muslims indicates what Peter Fleming saw.

not to mention the fact that you removed more than just that sentence. You removed "Racial slurs were allegedly used by the Chinese Muslim troops against Uighurs"

the source does indeed show epithets that were used by Tungans (Chinese muslims) against Turkic muslims (Uighurs) [4]

Дунгане ( talk) 00:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Another user has stepped forward with a comment on other actions you have made. Could you please go and explain them? Silver seren ^C 05:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long, I had some RL issues along with answering the copyvio stuff. I'm not aware of any combat arms unit history - usually it is just the small branches that go to this sort of effort. Sorry I wasn't more help. GregJackP  Boomer! 21:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The thesis behind Fragile States and Insecure People - among other things, that the state should act 'as a regulator to establish the parameters for justice and security service delivery and ensure accountability of providers' (p.238) - has two potential problems. First, and most likely to actually present an obstacle to policy actualisation, is that states are very often not strong enough to even act as regulars and ensurers of accountability. Even this can be beyond them. Second, in at least some cases, heads of government will not be content with acting as regulators, and will wish to crush opposition (eg. Joseph Kabila in the East). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Daniel Opande, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sga855.doc.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 10:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Daniel Opande, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sga855.doc.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 11:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Daniel Opande, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sga855.doc.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 00:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Every little but counts, believe me - those three little edits you made lesson the burden on the coordinators by helping them move the ACR process along. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked, and found that 54 people are watching my talkpage. I'm frankly flabbergasted. I'd be interested to hear from you.. please consider delurking and introducing yourselves. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Ian Rose ( talk) 08:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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 21:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I wasn't sure if you wanted to be a part of the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team. If you are interested please join the discussion of project details to the [ WP:USPP/Assessment Talk page]. We definitely need more reviewers if you have the time. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) ( talk) 22:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot. You mention that this was not a military facility or related to NATO. I reverted your edits because your assertions are not correct. The article (and its sources) clearly state that Air Division and its facilities were both. Being Royal Canadian Air Force, 1 Air Div was definitely military (it certainly wasn't civilian), and it was mandated by NATO. The main source for this article (from Library and Archives Canada) states: "The role of 1 Air Division was to provide air support in wartime for strike, reconnaissance or attack operations as mandated by NATO command." So, 1 Air Div was part of the NATO infrastructure, and not just an organization of Canadian jet fighter squadrons working on its own. I have an open mind on this, however, and would be interested in hearing your rationale in asserting that 1 Air Div or its facilites at Metz (or elsewhere for that matter) were not military or working for NATO. All the best.  BC  _{talk to me} 05:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal.   Roger Davies talk 08:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that your speedy deletion of List of US Air Force Strategic Air Command missiles was completely outside the scope of that criterion. G6 covers deletion of pages created in error, empty dated categories, unnecessary disambiguation and deletion of pages in order to perform maintenance. It does not cover the deletion of potentially useful content, no matter how well covered it may be elsewhere. Seemingly uncontroversial deletion of any article content must at least go through PROD. -- G W … 10:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to pick a small bone with you: the way you shorten my name (such as here). I don't mind abbreviated nicknames (my working name is "Sgt Ski" in the office), but removing the zeros seems just kinda sloppy or negligent instead of endearing. If you'd like to shorten my name, call me Baha. bahamut0013 ^words _deeds 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I have tried to bring the warring parties to their senses but all they do is blame each other. It's basically an ethnic based struggle between Greek and Albanian editors. Stratioti are actually an important in the development of European cavalry in the Renaissance and should be better served encyclopedically than this. If I were more knowledgeable about the period, I might be tempted to wade in and make some bold edits regardless. Unfortunately, it would be a question of trying to entice other editors in and this spat is probably something they will stay well clear of. I might try suggesting some specific improvements - the warring parties are actually quite knowledgeable and might engage. Anyway, thought I'd thank you for the offer but if you keep an admin eye on the article it may stop things spiraling out of control. Monstrelet ( talk) 08:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

mr please don't edit this page, you maked some backshots there, you're wrong here, it's not any fantasy, if you don't belive me look at those pages: [5] [6] [7] (Please expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia. (December 2009)) Peoples try to expand this article but you're block them edits. Do you understand me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almatinets ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The main problem was the completely false naval entries; as far as I know

Buckshot, first of all don't push wiki-users) Naval entries maybe is not full correctly, but in this summer KZ & US make a deal about US ships export to Kazakh Caspian shore. Other entires are correct. Don't delete them again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almatinets ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, no problems) only 9 boats. If I find some citations about Kazakh fleet, I will add them to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almatinets ( talk • contribs) 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen you have commented a previous CU filing for Neftchi, Kheo17. While the result was possible, see my comment here and my reply to Kheo17 here. Any comment would be welcome. Thanks. Magotteers ( talk) 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Takabeg, I'm a wikipedian from New Zealand. I've noticed your great work on Ottoman Empire military formations - it really fills in a gap we don't have much on. I've been trying to work on the present day Turkish Army without much success as it's very hard to use the translation software like Google Translate on Turkish sites. If you could contribute anything to the above article it would be really good. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe to form List of formations of the Turkish Army 2010 is easier for us. Because I formed the list in Turkish Wikipedia with using their HQ's phone numbers like this:) and formation were changed. After finishing Ottoman series, I'll try to improve the article. But I don't have sources about them. See you. Takabeg ( talk) 03:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on this. You've obviously looked at 70th Mechanised Infantry Brigade (Turkey); what you may not have noticed is that there's some hidden-at-the-moment badly translated Turkish text from the original article that User:MatthewVanitas and I could not work out. It's only visible if you open the edit box, - it's below the existing text. Would you mind please going back to the original tu-article and taking a look? Also, because the article started in English rather than U.S. spelling, in accordance with WP:RETAIN about maintaining the first variant of WP:ENGVAR I've moved the article back to its original spelling. Hope you don't mind. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand ! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. See you. Takabeg ( talk) 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Buckshot06, 2B11 Sani appears to be a direct rip-off of this page on Jane's. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 13:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about this - 2B9 Vasilek. The following text in the article, "The 2B9 "Vasilek" is a Russian-made automatic gun mortar that is unusual in its ability to load from either a four-round clip in a feed unit behind the breech or in the normal mortar fashion via muzzle loading. It uses a complicated carriage to allow stable high angle fire without the breech striking the ground. It has been seen mounted on some lighter armoured vehicles.", when google'd, comes up as an excerpt from a book. What is odd is that I wonder if this one of those e-books that directly copied Wikipedia material for its content rather than the other way around. However, it is a printed work complete with ISBNs. One odd thing is that the website does not identify an author. What do you think? Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you -- I've put up replacement stubs. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 19:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the reference header at the bottom of this page? Not sure whether you saw that at the bottom. Anyway kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you accept that web site as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources ? Takabeg ( talk) 09:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me how to make a template? I would like to make a template for the Ottoman Interregnum battles. Thank you. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, I think the Turkish Army Corps should be 3rd Corps, 4th Corps, 5th Corps, not III Corps, IV Corps, V Corps. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Valla I don't know :) About Ottoman era, specialists pretend I Corps, II Corps to 1st Corp, 2nd Corp. But today Turkish Armed Force uses 3rd Corps stile for modern Turkish corps. According to it, in Wikipedia 3rd Corps (Turkey) can be used. And some researchers also use 5th Cavalry Corps (one of the corps during the War of Independence). I think if there is no objection you can change the styles of the naming of Turkish (not Ottoman) corps. See you. Takabeg ( talk) 07:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And also in Turkish, there are many variations. For example "1 inci Kolordu", "1 nci Kolordu", "I. Kolordu" are used. Takabeg ( talk) 08:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Takabeg, congrats on all your great work! The thing with the corps number is that Tu:wiki uses tr:4. Kolordu (Türkiye), for the only corps article so far. Is this the same formation as IV Corps (Ottoman Empire) - no significant changes over the years? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the corps numbers, what do the KKK themselves use? 4. Kolordu? 4inci Kolordu? 4nci Kolordu? Since we have no corps articles on En:wiki so far (though your Ottoman corps articles link very well!), we can get the exact style the KKK actually uses in place before we start creating the modern corps articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for award and your kindness. But I only transfer basic information from printed materials to Wiki. tr:4. Kolordu (Türkiye) was not same as Ottoman IV Corps. Because it was dissolved in the end of WWI. Although some military formation have historical continuities with same numbered formations of the Ottoman Empire. For example First Army (Ottoman Empire)- First Army (Turkey), XV Corps (Ottoman Empire)- 15th Corps (Turkey)-15th Infantry Division. But they are not same formation precisely. So I think that we had better explain them in other articles. And I will tell you when I would research about usages of KKK. They are also too inconsistent. See you. Takabeg ( talk) 02:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain to me how using the talk page is now irrelevant and redundant. I tagged numerous unsourced sentences on Nov 11th. Later I explicitly outline on the talk page how certain references do not support the sentence they are referencing. Instead, I am accused of battlefield mentality, "nicely" told to leave the article to other editors and reverted.-- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there will be much to watch, since User:Yalens has already reverted back to his mostly unsourced/poorly sourced version. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My unreffered sources said the main chance for winning contract for 4 new amphibious warfare vessel with landing deck have French Mistral or new project from Russia - thats reason, why Mistal was still in that section. Result is expected in december, but maybe will be posponed due to intervence of design bureau —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornet24 ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, I would like to ask a favour. Would you please consider reviewing my edits at Genocides_in_history#Turkish_government_position, and telling me what you think; whether I need to change any wordings etc. I would very much appreciate your help. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

About this issue, I have added in Armenian Genocide#Republic of Turkey and the Genocide.

According to Kemal Çiçek, the head of the Armenian Research Group at the Turkish Historical Society, in Turkey there is no official thesis on the Armenian issue. Türk Tarih Kruumu

Takabeg ( talk) 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Roughly, Turkish state officials claim like this. Takabeg ( talk) 05:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Buckshot, please control Turkish Navy. I want and try to develop the article with sources.　 Takabeg ( talk) 03:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Made some changes to Turkish Navy. Please cite the two cite-needed tags in the history section as soon as possible. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Merci. Maybe he/she is User:Shiham K :) Takabeg ( talk) 03:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For Your Information (FYI) I've created TCG Gelibolu as a set index page. Viva ANZACs! [8] Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merci. ¡Viva España! Takabeg ( talk) 07:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Buckshot, for your messsage regarding the U.S. Navy command histories. Quite frankly, I have had concerns about this. I initially tried to do just as you suggested, adding the command histories to the bibliography or external links of the article of the specific ship, but I got a message from User:RP459 about the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) questiong this, so I came up with the List alternative approach. I even got an Original Barnstar from User:RP459 on 9 September 2010 for this solution. Maybe you and RP459 can discuss this and get back with me, or we can kick this over to User:The ed17 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history who is very good at resolving these issues. I just want other Wikipedians to hace access to this U.S. Navy primary source material. Please advise. Marcd30319 ( talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot, per your last message, I am adding section to the main talk page at WT:MILHIST. Marcd30319 ( talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a time. Please control sources. Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 11:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I know I didn't make all the edits that appear under my name in War of 1812. I know I didn't make them by mistake e.g. reverting and getting mixed up with intermediate edits. I don't think anyone has my password. I haven't noticed any other major mischief, but it is possible (I can't recall making any changes to Cairn Terrier - not one of my particular interests - but I might have). Jagdfeld ( talk) 17:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I may need some assistance (not sure yet). I removed a section of the article 17th_SS_Panzergrenadier_Division_Götz_von_Berlichingen because it a direct copy of copyrighted material. The quote from the book that was in the article may be seen at forum.axishistory.com. Here is the diff for my edit. I am concerned that the removal of the section may prompt a reversion of the copyrighted material. I'll let you know if that happens. I'll also put a note on the article's talk page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 06:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is my comment on the talk page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 06:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Buckshot. About Türkenübung, is youtube accepted as source ? :) And can you control Template:Military ranks of Egypt. Maybe meanings of term might be changed in Egypt but Qaimaqam originally means Lieutenant Colonel and Bimbashi means Major in Ottoman Turkish and Turkish languages. See you. Takabeg ( talk) 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Turkmenbung; check out exactly through WP:CITE as to how we cite multimedia and then put it in. But Youtube is not a serious source. Please as quickly as possible find a hardcopy / deadtree book to cite. Is there a good 'History of the Turkish Army' in Turkish? Also, I cannot 'control' anything, as you have seen with your discussion with Turco85 above. That's not in an administrator's powers; the community decides. What that means for the ranks article is that you should make your changes - see WP:BRD - and then discuss changes on the template talkpage if necessary. I'm always here to appeal to. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Turkish Navy - good work. Please start to consider how to merge the 'ships and submarines since 1923' with the history section; it's all one history, and as you show by noting the vessels that were released for (anti-smuggling?) duties soon after the capitulation, it runs into one another. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I found the identical copyrighted text in the article 42nd Infantry Division (United States) and removed it, with another note on the talk page there. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 04:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Quickly, WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says "Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army"." Hope that helps. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want, you can explain to Roslyn. Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 05:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Will United States Seventh Fleet become 7th Fleet ? Takabeg ( talk) 05:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not have realised it, but copying the article there was a copyright violation. You can summarise it in a sentence and link to it, but not copy it. Dougweller ( talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw your reply on my web page, thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 06:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, I moved the Category:Military bases of the United States nominations to the "contested" section because they had not been tagged for speedy renaming.If you could please tag them, then we can put them back into the queue. Thanks!-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are the Maroon Berets the four Army commando brigades? If they're not part of the army, which service are they part of? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A part of TSK. Bordo Bereliler are consisted of officers and junior officer from various forces. Takabeg ( talk) 11:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D ( talk) 05:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Buckshot, maybe you didn't know it (reliable but disputed). But you know WP:NPOV. I message to you, because other user, who doesn't know issue, added same biased information. See you. Takabeg ( talk) 12:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I suggest you illustrate to me exactly what you consider to be POV nationalist editing in the Iraqi Turkmens article. Do you consider a wide range of academic sources to be a nationalist factor?

If you look at the following edit by User:Takabeg (see here: [9]) you will see that it was in fact Takabeg [the user who has reported me to you] who put these sources and believed that they were reliable enough to be in the article. However, Takabeg failed to read the sources properly which say that the Iraqi government placed the Iraqi Turkmen population at 136,800 in 1957 but subsequently the Iraqi government admitted that the figure was incorrect and that it was actually 567,000. 'All the references say this! It has nothing to do with POV or nationalism. However, the funny thing is, is that now those references which Takabeg provided [with the intention of placing low figures of the community i.e. 136,800] failed to read the entire sources, I illustrated to them on their talk page [by quoting all the source they provided] the fact that all of them said that the Iraqi Turkmens numbered 567,000. Now Takabeg does not see these source [which they themselves had provided] to be a reliable anymore ([see here: [10]). I wonder why??

Nonetheless, even without the sources Takabeg provided, all the other sources were academic anyway...

So Buckshot06, please show me were my nationalistic edits occur. I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia trying to improve articles [yes it’s mainly on Turkish immigrants and minorities, but that’s my personal interest, it has nothing to do with nationalism] and I have never been threatened with being blocked. Thus, I am offended by the way you have warned me, especially when I have spent hours using reliable academic source to improve this article. The only thing Takabeg is interested in is lowering the population of the community; if you looked at the history of the article you would have known this [or maybe you have misunderstood the dispute- or so I hope]. I am willing to discuss this issue with mediators etc. if required, but it's a shame that academic sources in all my contributions is not enough for you all. Good day to you. Turco85 ( Talk) 09:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well technically, the census was published in 1959. So the 567,000 figure is the official number of the 1957 census. However, due to the political issues that concern northern Iraq, many Kurdish and Arab scholars pushed for a corrupt census. Thus, the government claimed to have counted 136,800 Turks. Nonetheless, I have also placed this into a footnote in the info box of the article.

The problem is that there is not much academia on this community. I have tried to look for journal articles via my university institution and could not find even one online-journal article. Thus, sources are very limited. Nonetheless, even the sources which User:Takabeg has used, supports what I am telling you here. What Takabeg did was type "136,800" into a google search and just placed whatever they could find into the article without actually reading them (see for example this link were Takabeg wrote in the search engine "only 136800" [11]).

So to sum up this confusing census debate, the 1957 census counted 567,000 Turkmens. However, due to political issues, the Iraqi government claimed that there were only 136,000 Turks. Furthermore, a year later they admitted that the very same census actually counted 567,000 Turkmen (more than 400% from the previous year’s claim). The census itself was published in 1959. Thus, the published census says that there was 567,000 Iraqi Turkmen in 1957 not 136,800. Turco85 ( Talk) 18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If we all know that the '136,800' figure was corrupt [as all the sources show], and we have sources which clearly state that the Iraqi government admitted that the population was actually 567,000, why on earth should we place a corrupt number in the info box? I think it is very misleading. Turco85 ( Talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Turco85. I apologise for my threats. Now, the book you said Takabeg cited says that the 136800 figure is the figure the Kurdish authorities claim. Would you please be very clear about which political agendas wish to cite which numbers, and please confirm exactly which agendas are involved. I need more than 'political issues' to try and thread the needle on this dispute. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. I apologise if I have come across as rude in my first response to you. It's just that User:Takabeg keeps trying to make me look bad to other users (see for example: [12])... it's getting really annoying now. I keep getting accused of ridiculous things and get called a number of names which gets frustrating after a while.

The political issues are quite complex, but here is an article which Scott Taylor (the author of the source above, which Takabeg provided), I'm sure this article will answer your questions. Turco85 ( Talk) 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I typed "136,800". It's no problem. Because we know that issue.

"136,800" is official data of 1957 census. Kurds in Iraq accepted it but this is not their invention. Kurdish authority also want to use it.

• put them at 2.4 % of the total population of Iraq at the time ....
• p. 1957 sayımının ilk resmi sonuçlarına göre 136 800 Türk bölgede yaşamaktaydı.

"567,000" is no official data and but the number in the study of Fazıl Demirci. According to Demirci and Hürmüzlü, the number was fixed as "567,000". But we cannot prove　it and we cannot say that was corrected number. The Turkish government and Turkoman nationalists want to use it.

In this case, we must show these disputed number and in article. Thank you.

Takabeg ( talk) 04:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, I cannot even take you seriously anymore. So are you now saying that the work of Scott Taylor [i.e. the author which you initially provided] is not reliable? What makes me laugh is that you have not read these sources properly either! If you look at page 87 of the second source which you have now provided it says the following: '1957 sayımının ilk resmi sonuçlarına göre 136 800 Türk bölgede yaşamaktaydı. Ancak bu sonuçlar 1958 darbesinden sonraki yeni hükümet zamanında düzeltilerek, yeniden yayınlanmıştı ki, bu defa ki rakamlar yani 567 000 rakamı gerçeğe daha yakın bir rakam olmuştu'. Which roughly translates to what I have explained on this discussion page. Turco85 ( Talk) 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Even Patrick Clawson, Deputy Director for research of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has shown is his articles that the Turkmen population was 9%. Why don't you google that!? Takabeg, I don't think you even care about this article. Your only goal is to lower the population and nothing else. All the sources have shown that the numbers were changed after it was published in 1959. You call me a nationalist, yet you cannot seem to accept facts by academic sources. Turco85 ( Talk) 10:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I am very happy for you to debate on my talkpage. But you MUST be civil to each other and stop sniping and making accusations at each other. WP:Assume Good Faith applies. I want to see a resolution to this issue, and I'm quite happy to follow you two as you come to an agreement. But if you keep hurling accusations at each other, I will block you both; not for editwarring or anything else, but for personal attacks. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Turco85, and Takabeg, please provide the academic article sources - no blog sites - which support your claims. List them here and I'll take a look. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

See for example:

• Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis in 'How US – EU Academia, Politicians and Mass Media Create a Fake Kurdistan with False Data'
• Scott Taylor in 'Among the Others – Encounters with the forgotten Turkmen of Iraq'
• Yücel Güçlü in 'Who Owns Kirkuk? The Turkoman Case'
• You can also look at the other sources which are cited in the Iraqi Turkmens article

This is the first time I have ever had to prove facts in a census... an experience I shall never forget. A census does not usually get published the year it is carried out; e.g. the 2010 US census won't be published till summer 2011. I have shown that the 1957 counted 567,000 Iraqi Turkmen using academic sources. I have even shown that the sources Takabeg has provided claim 567,000. There is nothing else I can do. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I guess I'm just going to have to wait and see whether academic sources will prevail against corruption. Turco85 ( Talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason you have to provide academic article sources, preferably scholarly journal articles, is because I have to make this decision. I'm a Kiwi with, charitably, little knowledge of this dispute, but I seem to have because involved in the dispute resolution. Scholarly journal articles are the most respected source of academic scholarship, which is why I'm asking you to provide them, because they are most trusted. Now, are these three journal articles? books? what? If they're books, I need full bibligraphic data so I can look for them; if they're journals, please give the journal names. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Found the refs for two, but not the Megalommmatis article - which journal is that in? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that Buckshot06, I thought I placed the links alongside the suggested sources! The first source was a mere article on a website [13]. Turco85 ( Talk) 22:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally random but I'm going NZ next year to sky-dive. Heard it's meant to be totally awesome! Turco85 ( Talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, I have also found an Arabic article (which is in the Arabic language); towards the end of the article it says that in 1959 it was declared that the population was in fact 567,000. Turco85 ( Talk) 11:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your probably sick of me by now (sorry!) but I have just come across a newspaper article which was published today but Iraqi-Arab author Ahmed Al-Hurmezi (see here: [14]). Although the article does not mention any census' I think it's a relatively simply (yet knowledgeable) read for those who do not know much about this community. Turco85 ( Talk) 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, as a respected independent [non-profit] peace organisation, the International Crisis Group seems reliable enough to me, especially since we have so many more sources which also back this up. Turco85 ( Talk) 09:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Buckshot. Yesterday, an editor named Takabeg brought to my attention the creation of three new articles on Wikipedia relating to the Nagorno-Karabakh War. They concern alleged massacres carried out by Armenian troops, although the sources used are highly partisan in nature, originating, almost without exception, from Azerbaijani news websites, politicians, and organizations, which clearly have a beef in the matter. I outlined my objections here on his talk page and told him that I would reference the matter to you as well. He has already added notability and reliability tags on the articles in question, with good reason I believe, but further action apparently is warranted. Would you mind taking a look? I'll chime in as well but if reliable sources are not found, then they should be merged into an existing article or deleted altogether. Cheers, -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the decision is to remove articles on these massacres, then why should this decision take one sided fashion? I suggest that Maraghar Massacre is also removed using the same reasoning. There does not seem to be sufficient evidence to support the claim, other than sources from a single side. Atabəy ( talk) 22:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Buckshot. I do not edit as often due to time constraints, however, I continue to watch several articles relevant to A-A topics. So you are welcome to contact me regarding this at any time.

Again, the campaign launched by User:Takabeg and User:MarshallBagramyan clearly aims to get rid of one-side of the conflict story and uphold the other (their own). User Takabeg was notorious in Turkish Wikipedia targeting anything related to Azeri side of the story.

I believe for the sake of neutrality, both sides should be treated the same way. I.e. if the Aghdaban massacre with 99 victims is irrelevant, I don't see why Sumgait Pogrom or Maraghar Massacre are relevant? What is the criteria for deciding the notability of these articles? If it is factual evidence, there are several sources proving that the events took place. If that is not sufficient, then the rule shall be applied equally to both stories. Thanks. Atabəy ( talk) 23:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that your judgment to delete the article was based on your impression of MarshallBagramyan rather than review of facts and references relevant to the subjects as well as ongoing discussion on the talk page?

• These are Google books references on " Maraghar Massacre" search term: [15]
• These are Google books references on "Agdaban" search term: [16]

Both seem to produce about the same amount of references in relevance to massacres, with slightly more in case of Agdaban. Could you explain how Agdaban massacre is different than Maraghar, preferably without reference to personal perception of users? Best regards. Atabəy ( talk) 23:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot, with all due respect, do you mind explaining why you deleted three articles which were being discussed, without even making a comment on their talk pages? Tuscumbia ( talk) 22:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot, in response to your answer, yes it does explain your actions, but does not explain your intent. I am very sorry to say that, but you deleted the articles with complete disregard to those editors who were commenting on the talk pages and discussing the issues raised by concerned editors, let alone the editor who created these articles. MarshallBagramyan is not an authority on Wikipedia over anyone and whether he raised the NK War article to FA standard or not does not warrant others to delete articles in sympathy to MarshallBagramyan. I created 100 more articles than MarshallBagramyan did on various subjects including Nagorno Karabakh raising many of them to various levels. Does that give you grounds to delete articles out of sympathy for my work? If so, please feel free to delete the Maraghar Massacre article which is based on Armenian and pro-Armenian sources and is not any more notable than those three massacres. Tuscumbia ( talk) 23:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why you're deleting articles related NK massacres? Your actions are completely one sided. You could use Talk page first, but it seems like to listen two people's opinion is enough to delete a page contributed at least by 5 people. Unbelievable!-- CenkX ( talk) 01:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

With all the hubub going on about Maraghar, I should like to point out that Tuscumbia added the same tags, with little justification, to that article, which were added by me on those massacre articles which were deleted recently. To the best of my understanding, this was done to make a POINT, since I am having considerable difficulty in understanding how sources like the BBC, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are considered unreliable? I have since tidied up the article and attributed any unclear claims but my argument still stands and can be found outlined on Tuscumbia's talk page here.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 03:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tuscumbia ( talk) 14:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, there's a thread regarding your actions at WP:AN. -- Jayron 32 06:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, I'm messaging you as I am concerned with the recent vandalism going on in the Iraqi Turkmens article. I suspect that User:Damn00 and I.P 85.166.151.8 are sock-puppets of User:Takabeg. The contributions of all three are very similar. I may be wrong... but it seems very possible. I would be really grateful if you keep an eye out. Have a great day and Merry Chirstmas from now! Turco85 ( Talk) 15:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What ? Don't cheat. Takabeg ( talk) 07:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Buckshot06, unfortunately your behavior is one-side. And if edits of User:Damn00 (Off Course I don't know him.) were regarded as vandalism, edits of User:Turco85 must be regarded as vandalism. I had proposed that both data of census (official number in 1957 and claimed by some researchers in 1958).　I know you don't have any intention to help propaganda of Turkmens, but as a result you help it. İnfoCan shared same approach of me. Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 09:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate to overburden you again but, given your familiarity on the topic and the fact that it is being done so blatantly, it appears that editors Tuscumbia and Atabey have decided to retaliate against your recent actions by making a POINT on the Maraghar Massacre article. They have added neutrality, notability, and until today unreliability tags and have all but admitted that they are carrying out these edits out of spite for your decisions. Sources which any other editor would find acceptable, such as the BBC, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, are deemed unreliable and there seems to be an intense effort to over-scrutinize and question the judgment of their respective authors. I only have to refer you to the sorry state the article is now in see the history here, what with the overabundance of tags and "citations needed" templates but it seems that some sort of action needs to be taken here and, since it directly concerns you, you might want to take a look at it yourself or in conjunction with your peers. Best, - Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 20:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Buckshot06, per suggestion from another administration at ANI, your deletion of the Agdaban massacre article did not follow the formal deletion procedure. Can you, please, restore the article? I will wait for your final response on this prior to proceeding with the deletion review. Thank you. Atabəy ( talk) 18:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you are aware of this already. But just to follow formal WP:DRV procedure as listed, I am inserting this tag below to notify. Thanks. Atabəy ( talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Agdaban massacre. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Atabəy ( talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Do you know if this new article is another made up OEF operation? I can't find any very convincing looking sources for an operation of this name through Google - basically all that comes up is various Wikipedia mirrors. I hope that all's well in NZ. Cheers, Nick-D ( talk) 10:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Daniel Opande, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sga855.doc.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot ( talk) 05:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi i cleaned up the page enjoy! ( talk) 11:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I closed the deletion review of Agdaban massacre since you reverted your deletion of the page. Could you restore Talk:Agdaban massacre too, please? Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Bsherr ( talk) 03:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• It no longer is closed and ANI doesn't think the reopening and expansion of the DRV an issue. Buckshot06, would you please restore Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre and Garadaghly Massacre so the DRV can be closed? Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot06, per DRV conclusion, can you please, restore Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre and Garadaghly Massacre articles as well. Thank you and happy holidays. Atabəy ( talk) 16:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The military installations categories should be tagged. A category like Category:Israel Defense Forces bases cannot be transferred to Category:Military installations of Israel without giving some notification.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, I closed the Speedy nominations of the categories you tagged, but did not do so for the ones you haven't tagged. Go ahead and do so when you have time and we can put them back in the queue.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 06:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for marking the article for deletion. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I note and agree with your attempt to update the title of the North American Station article. However to apply the last used name I suspect we should use "America and West Indies Station". What do you think? Dormskirk ( talk) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you may be right. But if anything, I probably went with including 'North' because the station had that appelation for most of it's history, and was thus better known under that name. A&WI was only the title for a short period. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I am very happy to stick with your choice. Dormskirk ( talk) 09:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please could you take a look at Talk:North American and West Indies Station. Assuming you agree, please could you move the article to North America and West Indies Station i.e. without the n. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi buckshot06 just wanted to let you know I got your question about "sobels" and I talked about them a little on the discussion page for Sierra Leone Civil War cheers Choozy78 ( talk) 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Sahindakan continues to remove references and referenced information, despite numerous warnings [17] [18] [19] [20]. Instead he posted on my talk page of "western propaganda" [21]. Can you inform this editor the proper way to edit on wikipedia? Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt User:Sahindakan will be inclined to discuss anything since he/she already reverted [22] you on List of Albanians. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXMjGwBhMcw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOvaHyE4To

Atatürk's family tree

http://www.kanalkultur.com/yolalevi/...r/aleviata.jpg

Yörük Turkmen in Balkan http://balkanpazar.org/yorukler.asp

His ancestors were Turcomans of Karaman who were settled into the Balkans in order to increase the numbers of Turkics in the region.

Profesori turk Enver Behnam Shapolyo shkruan: "Për gjyshërit e Ataturkut kisha pyetur një shok shkolle të Ataturkut, që ka qenë deputet, i quajtur Haxhi Mehmeti. Ai më tha: -Gjyshërit e Ataturkut janë nga komuna e Dibrës, Koxhshëk, të cilët kishin ardhur nga Konja e Anadollit dhe flisnin turqisht, për këtë shkak quheshin edhe "konjarë"...

Mustafa was born as the son of Mr and Mrs Ali Rıza Efendi Turkish and Zübeyde Hanım in Salonika, which was then a part of the Ottoman Empire. It was also home to various peoples in the cosmopolitan Muslims with Jews and Christians lived together peacefully mainly. Mustafa's paternal grandfather, Kızıl Hafız Ahmed was one of the Yörük Türkmen. His mother was the daughter of an old peasant, originally from Konya, Karaman-derived family of the little town Langasa (now Langadas) in Thessaloniki. The parents were married 1871,

"Efendiler, benim atalarım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir " M.Kemal Atatürk

"Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Anatolia to Rumelia is from the Turkmen Yörük " M. Kemal Ataturk

and according to Falih Rıfkı Atay, Ali Rıza's roots have come from Söke in Aydın Province.[13][14] His mother Zübeyde is thought to be of Turkish[10][11] and according to Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, her roots have come from Turkoman (Türkmen) and in his family, there was roumor that they have come of Yörük.[15]

Time, 24-Mar-1923, DETAILS: Where is the Turk his own master read what it had to say on the matter you asked me before _ unstained reputation. Some of these wild reports charged him with being anything from a traitor to his country to being a "foreigner." Kemal is pure Turk (not, as some have said, a Jew) and has proved to the whole world that he is the core of Modern Turkey.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,726976,00.html#ixzz18pnedDGl

Kocacık Köyünden Veyis Lemo (76), Atatürkün atalarının Karaman kökenli olduklarını, Kızıloğuzlar yörüklerinden oldukları için Kızıl lakabıyla tanındıklarını söyledi.

Translate to English

Veyis Lemo (76 year old) from Kocacik village said atatürk's ancestors came from Karaman and they were called "kizil" (Red) Because they were from Kiziloguz Yörük Tribe,

Source: http://www.hurriyet.de/haberler/gundem/342603/ataturkun-baba-ocagi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk page. D2306 ( talk) 23:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi D2306, what exactly did you want my help with? I'm no particular expert on the Germans in Southern USSR. Maybe you want to raise your issue at WT:MILHIST? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No problems, I just wanted to notify you, since you made a few edits to the article, and I intend to put this article for WP:FAR. D2306 ( talk) 02:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Buckshot06. I notice that the DRV is still open about your IAR deletion of certain massacre articles under G10. Per the opinions expressed so far, it seems to me that you could go ahead and restore all these articles. This would allow them to be brought to AfD by anyone who is still concerned. If you did so, the DRV could be procedurally closed by any admin. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{ WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

I have nominated Third Battle of Kharkov for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I am notifying you, as you helped to copyedit the article back in 2008. D2306 ( talk) 14:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything you can do about the continued removal of references and referenced information on the article Hasan Tahsin? As seen here [23], this article has been under attack since Sept. 2010. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you have any advice on how to get these Anon IPs to use the talk page? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for what you have don on the cape verde military page ( Questchest ( talk) 21:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

Hello there,

given the interest you expressed in strategy:Proposal:Expert review, I wanted to bring m:Expert review to your attention. At this point, it captures the current efforts in this area. There are some obvious ways in which you could help:

1) There's an existing proof-of-concept JavaScript displaying expert reviews for articles for which they are available. That script could be significantly improved, and potentially be promoted to gadget status.

2) We need to develop the product specifications for what expert review in Wikipedia should look like (starting with the simplest implementation that makes sense). The Meta page has some initial draft notes, but mock-ups, thoughts and additional documentation would be much appreciated.

3) We should think about what the most effective and scalable ways are to mobilize large groups of experts to participate in review processes, and to validate their credentials. There is an opportunity right now with the APS, which has just launched a Wikipedia initiative, and is willing to ask its 20,000 members to help with expert assessments. But we should think about the longer term as well.

Your participation in these and other areas would be much appreciated. Hope to see you on Meta,-- Eloquence * 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, sorry to bother you on this issue again but it seems as though things are heating-up again. I would really appreciate it if you can have a look. Thanks in advance. Turco85 ( Talk) 17:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Buckshot, please do take a look. If you look at the Talk Page that Turco has conveniently archived (this is a person who, by the way, has a map of Cypress on his User page covered entirely by a Turkish flag.... not space on his island for the native inhabitants then! People like this should be banned from Wikipedia) you will see he has been edit warring, or at least editing against consensus, against users Izzedine, OmarKhayyam, Taivo, Damn00, and myself. He is having serious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles issues. Which is weird, because he doesn't seem to know the first thing about Iraqi Turkmen, not even what language they speak! NahlaHussain2008 ( talk) 18:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Buck, allow me to outine my approach and objective and my intentions for this article and the other carrier strike group articles:

• It is to create an article on Carrier Division Two and integrate the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG) with the other carriers that have been part of CarDiv 2/CarGru 2: YORKTOWN, ENTERPRISE, USS FRANKLIN (CV 13), USS LEXINGTON (CV 16), USS WASP, USS ESSEX, USS BENNINGTON, USS BOXER, USS ANTIETAM, USS PRINCETON, USS TARAWA, USS LEYTE, USS CORAL SEA, USS ROOSEVELT, USS INTREPID, USS RANDOLPH, USS INDEPENDENCE (CV 61), USS CONSTELLATION (CV 64), USS SARATOGA (CV 60), USS JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74) and USS JOHN F. KENNEDY (CV 67). This list is from GlobalSecurity.org which was undoubtedly a cut-and-paste from the old GarGru 2 website.

• The reason that I am treating HSTCSG differently is that it was formed after 1992 when the U.S. Navy mandated greater integration of its surface warfare and air warfare assets that eventually evolved into carrier strike groups, per Polmar, Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet 15th ed., 1993. So, HSTCSG is a stand-alone article that will be linked to the master article about CarDiv 2/CarGru 2 with the carriers mentioned above that will be included in said master article. Therefore, it seems appropriate to have HSTCSG as part of Carrier Group Two in the Infobox which will be linked it the CarDiv 2/CarGru 2 master article, which will again include the other carriers. Also, any admistrative/operational issues are addressed in the Overview section of the Article.

• I will also take this approach with other Carrier Strike Group and Carrier Division precursors, as well as any post-1992 CSG/CVBGs.

The bottom line is that I request that you allow me the opportunity to finish this long-term project. The more time I spend going around these incidental edits, the less time I have to finish this objective. If you want, I am sure Ed17 can supervise this since he has expertise from coordinating the Titan project. If you have any suggestions, please drop off any suggestions at my rockin' new talk page, and I promise to respond ASAP. I have put a lot of effort into these articles, and I want to move forward. I am juggling a new job and many other responsibilities, and I'd like to make my Wikipedia contributions to be a more manageable process. Your forbearance and trust can go a long way to accomplishing both tasks. Thank you for your time and insights. Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, I made This edit because the details on the page on both World War II and Cyprus in 1974 are important parts Turkish politics rather than TAF's. As you may know Turkey was neutral during WWII, thus TAF hadnot much to do. Similarly, after the operations in 1974 TAF didn't do much in Cyprus. Warm regards Yakamoz51 ( talk) 21:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you commented on 'Modern American Weapons' at CfD, the proposal has been modified somewhat. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to take another look at the modified proposal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Suzuki DR350, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{ hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dbratland ( talk) 02:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I gladly help with any request you may have. To be honest I have not fully understood the objective here. Please help me better understand what exactly you want to know and why so that I can ask semi intelligent question on the German WP. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 09:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but this looks like an interesting page in regards to this. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 19:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2011 to you as well! Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 11:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You may find these army publications useful for tracking units between 1919 and 1941:
HQ and Infantry
Cavalry and Artillery
Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 14:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. Sorry for the confusion. I am not trying to ignore you. I assume good faith on the part of any collaborator or contributor. If you see a link that needs fixing or typo needing correcting, please feel free to do so. If you have any more substantial issues, please drop me a line at my talk page and I will respond. I am a professional enough writer-editor-researcher to appreciate any assistance that a knowledgeable Wikipedia guru can offer. I am sure you can appreciate that the articles that I have written are very labor intensive. I am juggling a new job, one creative writing project for a former boss, another creative writing project for myself, and the usual housekeeping challenges that ordinary life demands. Please be patient and allow me the opportunity to continue to contribute. My work speaks for itself, and I hope this will reassure you. Most cordially yours. Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this editor [24], does not understand changing referenced information and the quotes from said reference are not acceptable. I have posted repeated notifications on User:178.241.201.78's talk page [25] [26] [27] [28]. Can you help? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for two weeks. Please advise me if the problem persists. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This user [29] appears to have the same problem. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot06,

Article: 10th Rifle Division (Soviet Union)

I've come across the article you've started on the en.wikipedia.org from the ru.wikipedia.org. I would like to expand/update the english version. Unfortunately, I have had no success in finding anyone who could help me do it correctly (by Wikipedia standards). I've asking in both #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-ru and have been unsuccesful. Even no response in #wikipedia-ru with no response from anyone in there on two seperate times. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 08:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean I didn't place the "translation" template onto the talkpage? A while after I did the talkpage, I was considering putting that template. But I couldn't find the "oldid" number. Therefore I started to ask around to see if anyone could help me. There was another article I helped improve was Josef Fitzthum which someone else had started. I helped get the information box and picture from the other wikipedia to the english version. As for the translation template, by the time I started to work on it in that article it was already there, I just added the "oldid" number to the template. [Same reponse to what is on my talkpage to your reply]. Adamdaley ( talk) 21:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Using Google Translator I can. But I was told "I wouldn't do that" or something like that by one of the #wikipedia-en users on Freenode IRC servers. Adamdaley ( talk) 23:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Debrecen order of battle 2 -- mistake on my part, sorry! Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

could you please put an edit on the Military of Cape Verde i don't know russian equipment i know that amilcar cabral had visited russia like 3/4 times but i don't know i heard english poeple on TV saying russia is shit cold but yeah they had the coldwar ( Questchest ( talk) 00:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Hey, I saw your edits recently on my watchlist and clicked over to your user page and was impressed. I always remember you being very helpful when I encounter you on editing Military History articles. Have you considering applying to become a Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors? It is a great way to help college students become more familiar with Wikipedia, and make them good long term contributers! Sadads ( talk) 19:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not care for anon IPs stalking through my edits and deleting references and content. It would appear this anon IP [30], was stalking my edits and Takabegs. This anon is most likely a sockpuppet [31] of some sort. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This editor [32] appears to be simply reverting numerous other editors [33] [34] [35]. Can you help? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot, how are you doing? Following up on Kansas Bear's two complaints above, it appears that the IP whom you blocked was possibly a sockpuppet User:Karfiol. If you check his recent contributions, he has been removing the Armenian spelling for historical Armenian towns and settlements and even injecting his own POV. This much is discerned by the following examples: Bitlis, Kars, Turkey, and the Ardahan articles have all fallen prey to vandalism. Given his persistent edit-warring and lack of discussion, I don't think any of this done out of good-faith. Thank you.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Bagramyan regarding user Kansas Bear is incorrect about the complaint since this is not the Armenian Wikipedia.

Regions in Turkey should be described (for Wikipedia:English) with their Turkish name and their English equivalent as

not all visitors to Wikipedia are Armenian or can read the Armenian language.

There is a hidden premise in the insistence that Armenian names be listed for the naming of regions in Turkey as

this can then be used by certain interest groups to solidify Armenian claims of territory over Turkey.

Wikipedia needless to explain is neither the place for a political debate nor is a

biased and politically motivated view point allowed. I understand that you are keeping a neutral viewpoint when it comes to

matters regarding the republic of Turkey and I commend this however my point in informing you is to give a voice

for the reason why Kansas Bear is doing what he is doing.

Additionally thank you for taking note of the Turkish navy page, as for some time now people who have had negative views of

Turkey have been consistently trying to alter the facts regarding the Turkish navy and always claim that there is "too much"

national chest beating in an attempt to hide the fact that they disagree with the sourced and reported fleet size of the Turkish :navy. Apparently the Turks are too poor and barbaric to have such a large navy, it get's tiresome no? Again thanks for taking notice. AussieSkeptic82 ( talk) 13:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Buckshot6. With regards to the Chief of Staff issue, I've seen both titles used interchangeably in both news reports and government press releases, as well as AFRICOM releases, but you're probably right in the formal title of his position. As for the Coast Guard, my edit was based on the recent speech given by President Sirleaf on Armed Forces Day where she referred to the entire Armed Forces of Liberia, including the Coast Guard, as falling under the banner of the 23rd Brigade. You may want to check this (the speech is available on the Executive Mansion website as a pdf), but I don't care enough to change it back. Thus, I wasn't being reckless when editing; my information was coming from various reliable sources. If you have questions or concerns regarding an edit, feel free to ask on my talk page, since you may very well be correct, but please don't just state what you believe to be the facts on what was already unsourced material and then call me reckless. It's not particularly civil. Helmandsare ( talk) 01:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you and yours are safe and sound. Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Has been warned numerous times about removing the word "Kurdish" from articles [36] and apparently has decided to embark on a hate crusade against me [37] [38]. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, your expertise is needed here. I think the book Military Balance 2010 by IISS is a very reliable source. What do you think? Why would the book give 104 Mig-25s in the list if they were all retired in 2006 like the IP claims? Nanobear ( talk) 20:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:146.232.75.208, [39] appears to have difficulty understand original research and battleground mentality. He/she has introduced questionable sources from unpublished, highly nationalistic websites as "sources" for his/her anti-Turkic vendetta throughout Wikipedia. [40] [41] [42] I have had to restored references and referenced information from neutral published sources that User:146.232.75.208 finds unpalatable. I have also had to remove weasel words within referenced sentences, that User:146.232.75.208 has decided to subvert from their original meaning. [43] Could you take a look at this editor's actions? Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a anti Turk vandetta - that is extremely rude to say, on the contrary I am quite interested in Turkic matters such as culture and history. The examples you gave 0 Cuman people, Volga Tatars etc - for pointing out obvious flaws in the article and its statements i am now labelled as an anti Turk, how does that even make sense, clealry Kansas Bear has great difficulty in comprehending simple logic and common sense. If I am an anti Turk, then Kansas bear is an anti Iranic. Also the sources are not questionable, and they fit in perfectly with what i am saying.Buckshot - to understand where I am coming from and to understand my viewpoints - first take a look at Kansas Bear's talk page - the part where I posted and read what I said, then take a look at my revert and edit comments on the Cuman page - look for the ip of 41 and my current one - the edits I made are here and there, going back to last year March April I think, and I also posted on the talk page of Kuman people and I think Kipchak people as well. Also take a look at my revert and edit comments for Volga Tatars. Now let me explain - I oppose the inclusion of only the Turkic theory of the Kuamans in the article for a very simple reason (and yes it is a theory since nothing is proven, and language itself is not enought to prove someone's ethnicity) - the reasons are: practically all medivel sources and reports from Germany, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Byzantium reffer to the Kumans as blond and blue eyed - even the Kumans' alternative names in those languages literraly means 'blond', 'bue eyed;' etc. So my simple point is that they might have not been Turkic at all, since it is impossible to get Turkic people who are naturally blond or blue eyed - it just does not happen - it is impossible in the science of genetics, the same way that you dont get a blond and blue eyed chinese person. So all I did was to suggest another theory which was deduced by simple common sense and logic, but was immediately attacked by a million people all throwing wikipedia rules at me of sources - to understand what i think of those sources read my recent message on kansas bear's talk page. Is it our fault that no 'researcher' has ever had the epithany of simple logic and common sense and realize that you do not get blond Turks (some are blond in Turkey but those are descended or mixed with the large greek population in anatolia during the ottoman invasion). By the way most Turkologists are Turkic themselves so of course they will say that the kumans are Turkic, there is clearly bias. I simply suggested that they could rather have been Iranic, since you do get blond hair and blue eyes in Iranic people - it does happen. i also said that the Kumans language (Turkic) could have been due to 'lingua franca' - in other words it doesnt make them Turkic with absolute certainty that the Kumans were Turkic just because of their language - the same way Tatars( who are not really Turkic, if any) might not be Turkic bu7t speak a Turkic language, and the Iranians at present use an Arabic alphabet system but they themselves are not Arabs etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 ( talk) 09:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Mar 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{ WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

So, Buck, how do I get to the data on Combat Medic Badge? I proposed the merger to Combat Medical Badge but had not yet taken the step of transferring data. Thanks. -- S. Rich ( talk) 13:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Ahhh, nevermind. The stuff was just the rehash of the regulation. I'm happy. I'll remove the merge tag. 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me. cooldenny ( talk) 01:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot06, thank you for your good suggestions on Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper. I may have a conflict; I recently discovered I met Captain Heide at a Summer Camp in 1979. I have not had any contact with her for over 30 years, but have email contact with her now and this may put me too close to the subject - I do not feel comfortable working on her page now. However, I have no problem searching for links to use for citation. I have place a number of them on her Talk Page. Perhaps you could look them over and work on her page? Thank you. Gamweb ( talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this editor [44] and the anon IP [45] that apparently feel they can remove referenced information simply because they don't like what it says. Thanks. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot06, check out Odontomachus -- I noticed the "rate this page" box at the bottom of the article. I didn't see where the code was for this feature when looking at the article with the "Edit" tab. I also notice this seems to be on few articles. Is this a general feature for all editors to use? Thanks! Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 15:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, apparently some kind of mediawiki thing. this page has a bit on it. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 04:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I wondered if there is a source that could be referenced for the following fact recently added: "No. 1 Squadron was specifically earmarked for Norwegian operations in the event of war, operating as part of Allied Forces Northern Europe, possibly in support of 3 Commando Brigade." As the article is under intense review, it is almost certain that reviewers will take a dislike to it not having a citation, and that would then require its removal. Kyteto ( talk) 22:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stub article now up. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Stub for 6th Guards Army (Soviet Union) also now up. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 14:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Stub for 10th Guards Army (Soviet Union) also now up. All of the Guards Armies have at least stub articles now. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 18:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot06, FYI, proceeding with a merge proposal I made three weeks ago for the two 30th SS Division articles, I merged them into one. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure, but I think what you are looking for is Třeboň, which is usually called "Тршебонь" in Russian, but is occasionally referred to as "Трежбонь".— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); February 21, 2011; 12:58 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

What is the template one should use to say an article's title is in dispute? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Try this one :) - Rich(MTCD) ^{T| C| E-Mail} 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

{{npov}} also Ocaasi ^c 02:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to re-consider the change of title of this article from its original "Ottoman Airforce" to something that is not recognizable and does not seem to have a good rationale. I am suprised that such a massive change is done without seeking a concensus especially when there is an open discussion and a tag indicating there is a disagreement on this. I would like you to undo this edit and open it to a discussion and search concensus. This article already seems to be the focus of attention of a disruptive editor. Thanks. Murat ( talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In all my extensive reading on the topic over the years, I have never seen anything but "Ottoman Air Force" as the common name of the organization. Concept of Air Force and the word itself came into being slowly in time, just as with any other air force being established at the time. A simple google search resulted in over 190 "Ottoman Air Force" hits, but only 8 for "Air Squadrons", all right here only. A simple re-direct from "Air Squadrons" would have added more value to the article and not to mention less argument and confusion. Murat ( talk) 01:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I have started a rename discussion, but after spending some time looking at the evidence, this is a fairly clear cut case and the name should be restored. The evidence is overwhelming and very clear that there was an Ottoman Air Force, that its name was Ottoman Air Force, and that it came under the direct control of the government not the army or navy. There is a possibility of confusion because the Ottoman Air Force did have Army and Navy squadrons within its force, and I assume that's where the error has come from. SilkTork * ^{Tea time} 11:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since his return to wikipedia, Hudavendigar has embarked on questionable actions and incivil statements toward editors of whom he has a history.

• "Bullying and threatening editors..." [46], after I warned this "new" editor Tugrulirmak for moving Van Resistance without discussion or consensus.
• "Reversed the undo by a pov editor seemingly engaged in ethnic struggle on these pages..." [47], addressed to Marshall Bagramyan.
• "Tried to clean up baltant vandalism, ethnic propaganda, without any references" [48],note:references later were provided by Takabeg which proves it wasn't "baltant vandalism" or "ethnic propaganda"..
• Here, he is canvassing support.. [49], by the way SilkTork has never edited "Ottoman Air Force" or "Aviation Squadrons (Ottoman Empire)"

All of this only since 26 May 2011! You may wish to give him a warning. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing histories of the above-mentioned users speak for themselves. On more than one occasion this editor has made threatening remarks in my direction, and on a recent occasion against another editor who did not comply with his wishes. Wikipedia deserves better. Murat ( talk) 01:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

this guy callled Kansas the arm taker is nothing but a loser provocateur. nobody should believe him. he is troling around and making a mess in wikipedia. he is sponsored by some weird government agancies . he is very racist and he thinks racism is the only way to use internet. please becareful for this one and report him right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.30.210 ( talk) 13:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I provided information about TAF. If you have time, can you improve these sentences. Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 15:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Takabeg. Can you find a reference for the stated role of the Turkish Chief of General Staff? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Federal Research Division, Turkey: A Country Study, Kessinger Publishing, 2004, ISBN  9781419191268, p. 337. Is it too old ? Takabeg ( talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06. Have you compared History of Turkish navies with Ottoman Navy ? Takabeg ( talk) 20:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I undeleted 57th Signal Company (United States) which you prodded back in 2009 per a request at WP:REFUND. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06. Can you move Ahmet Ağaoğlu (journalist) to Ahmet Ağaoğlu. another Ahmet Ağaoğlu is not notable. Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 08:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, a clash of views has developed for the article Kerch–Eltigen Operation. The opening of the article states The Kerch–Eltigen Operation was a World War II amphibious offensive made in November 1943 by the Red Army as a precursor to the Crimean Offensive (8 April-12 May 1944) with the object of liberating the Crimea from German occupation. IP editor 139.168.10.149 has twice changed the word "liberating" to "conquering".

I'm not hung up on having to use the word "liberate", but the use of "conquer" in a situation where Red Army troops are ejecting an enemy from what was Soviet territory at the start of the war is at best misleading. I've reverted twice now and have asked the IP editor to discuss on the talk page. Request you take a look at this. Thanks, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 05:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

i don't think liberate is appropriate, especially when the land the germans were ejected from was originally ukrainian, and ukrainians being against the soviets in the Ukrainian War of Independence and Ukrainian–Soviet War -- 139.168.10.149 ( talk) 05:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My view is that Ukrainian:Russian disputes over the Crimea have little to do with the context of the Russo-German War which was primarily a war between the Soviet Union and Germany. This article addresses a battle of the Russo-German War (Great Patriotic War), and it is to say the least confusing to average readers to use terms like "conquer" when the USSR was recovering territory that it already controlled on June 22, 1941. Use of terms like conquer strikes me as revisionism designed to satisfy modern Ukrainian nationalist viewpoints. While I believe the Ukrainians are more than welcome to their viewpoints of these events, I am skeptical of the broad use of these viewpoints in the English-language Wikipedia, where most readers are only somewhat aware of the details of the Soviet-German conflict and practically none are aware of the sub-strata of ethnic conflicts which took place in the context of this war. Put shortly, I think the Ukrainian viewpoint of these events is a valid topic for a focused Wikipedia article, but should not be casually introduced into general-topic Russo-German War articles like Kerch-Eltigen.

That noted, I am not fixated on using the term "liberated" in the introductory paragraph of the article. As I originally wrote this article, I will re-write the introductory paragraph as it is too short. While I am doing that, I will use more politically neutral language such as "defeat" vice "liberate". W. B. Wilson ( talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro paragraph done. W. B. Wilson ( talk) 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

should the Soviets decided to follow this success with two amphibious landings on the eastern coast of the Crimea as a prelude to the liberation of the entire Crimean Peninsula be changed to to the Soviets decided to follow this success with two amphibious landings on the eastern coast of the Crimea as a prelude to the re-taking of the entire Crimean Peninsula.?-- 139.168.10.149 ( talk) 10:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe Mr Wilson will have little problem with so doing, but he has perfectly expressed my misgivings with adding sub-strata overtones to articles about WW II / Great Patriotic War. Territory controlled as of June 22, 1941, is in my view the most relevant starting point; otherwise, one could go back as many times as one liked and say that the original Greek colonists were being impuned. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

does that include part of poland and finland?-- 139.168.10.149 ( talk) 23:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please explain exactly what you meant, and please also refrain from just trying to score debating points. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia, not to fight. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

i mean if part of poland and finland is also a relevent starting point because the soviet union had annexed part of poland and finland before june 22 1941 in the Soviet invasion of Poland and the Winter War.-- 139.168.10.149 ( talk) 06:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

139.168.10.149, have you also edited Wikipedia as this user: 124.176.142.152 ( talk) ? W. B. Wilson ( talk) 05:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Do you have any information about the conclusion of Siksok's case ( this case) ? Possibly that was deleted from page. When you have a time, could you control it ? Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 20:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is not Azeri but Azerbaijani Armed Forces, second of all that part of article contained a lot of armenian propagandist sources, and finally, the sentences in that phrases was even not properly written - full of errors and so on. So make good judgment.-- NovaSkola ( talk) 09:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For the recognition on my talk page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period April-June 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{ WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

hello i writing to about azerbaijani armed forces, i waiting for you give answer. [50] BabəkXürrəmi ( talk) 04:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've run into some confusing info on my search for missing people to add to the Chief of Staff of the French Army list. Maxime Weygand was Chief of Staff from 1931-1935, this is well documented. However, I just ran across this source, which states that Maurice Gamelin was Chief of Staff in 1931.

The only comprehensible explanation I can find for this is that the prior Chief of Staff, Joseph Joffre, died in January of 1931. Weygand wasn't made Chief of Staff until September of 1931. Perhaps Gamelin served in the interim of that time period? I'm just not sure. Silver seren ^C 04:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This may be a problem that I was thinking about earlier. By 1939 the French Air Force existed, and thus French Army CoS and Armee francais/French Armed Forces CoS are not the same person. Check around with the bios of the WW1/WW2 figures would be my recommendation. Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. I think for now, i'm just going to add as many people as I can find into the list and worry about splitting it up into two parts afterwards, since i'll have all the names by then. Silver seren ^C 21:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, regarding 6th Mechanized Corps (Soviet Union), don't you think it is better to leave the "first formation" in this article, and include all the information regarding the "second formation" (1942) in an article about 5GMRD? These two formations had nothing common to each other with the sole exception of the numbering ("6th"). I don't think readers that search for 6th Mech will have an idea to look at 5GMRD article at all. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 11:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your note Kubanczyk. The rule Ceriy, others, and I have tried to follow when writing about Soviet divisions has been to keep all the data in one place, thus 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division, which covers multiple designations, or 90th Guards Tank Division. This is in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. You'll see if you look at my contributions that I'm working on an article that will become 5th Guards Motor Rifle Division, covering the history of the 6th Mech Corps (I), 6th Mech Corps (II), 5th Guards Mech Corps, 5th Guards Mech Div, its motor rifle division stage, and finally 5th Guards Motor Rifle Division. All the historical material will be wound in there, and the other names will become redirects. Hope this explains my actions. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

i having made nice photo of pulic billboard of army special forces. are i allowed to upload picture to wikipedia? wat copyright? thanks. BabəkXürrəmi ( talk) 04:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot06, sorry to bring your attention to this sort of thing (again), but this may get contentious. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 19:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Accurate aircraft listings for the RuAF here

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/world-air-forces-2010-78877.aspx

It a PDF, Figures are for year 2010 - 2011 (So last year), Has A/C listings for 160+ nations and their entire fleets of A/C in service - (Air force, Navy, Army, Defense Flying Schools etc). You could single source the the entire A/C listings of the RuAF with a decent reliable source. Recon.Army ( talk) 16:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you not see the big red warning saying that {{ Expand}} is deprecated? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Otters want attention)} 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Buckshot06. I'm sorry but I don't know exact reasons, because I have no evidence. To bring the Army under civilian control, coup prevention, return grudge :), Ergenekon ... Explanation of some well-informed persons as follows: Inside Story - Turkey: A new political era? (AlJazeera). It's not easy for me. Please give me a time. Takabeg ( talk) 17:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the 75th Ranger Regiment and 160th are organic to USASOC, I'm not arguing differently. The most current edit I've provided to the actual article (which no one has argued against thus far) represents my thoughts from the beginning. 75.111.97.117 ( talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Buckshot06  ! I was just wondering what was the intent of this edit? Just letting you know I removed the text, and translated the small part that wasn't already in the article, because English Wikipedia users are not expected to be able to read French. Again, not sure why you did it, but if you're looking for someone to translate content from an other wiki, there is a template available at {{ Expand French}} (replacing French with X language if needed). Additionally, there are copyright and plagiarism issues with taking text from another wiki without properly citing where it came from, even when done with the best of intentions. An easy way to deal with that is to use the {{ Translation/Ref}} template. Best, CharlieEchoTango 06:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm surprised to see you blocking an editor with whom you appear to have a content dispute, moreover without any visible discussion. May I suggest you unblock and ask a neutral admin to review? All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 12:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Hello Buckshot06. I too am concerned about the block of User:NovaSkola. Please consider undoing the block pending a discussion, or ask for a review of your block at a noticeboard. I notice you have continued to edit Wikipedia but you haven't responded to Rich. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rich and Ed. Not sure where to put this, so I will answer here. The background for this issue is probably best seen at Talk:Azerbaijani Armed Forces, User talk:Neftchi#Archive 2, and the extensive background of Wikipedia:ARBAA2. I copied the initial e-mail exchange I'd been having with NovaSkola to User:Kirill Lokshin, though I have received no comment. The reason I made this block was what without ARBAA2 would have been a content dispute, but in addition the distortion of sources. I hope you have both read the discussion at User talk:NovaSkola#Azeri_Armed_Forces, which was the preliminary. My reaction to the writing there was heavily influenced by ARBAA2 and the enormous amount of grief I've had trying to arbitrate between Azeris, Armenians, and Turks. As far as I'm concerned, the distorted editing patterns, amounting to institutionalised POV pushing against what appears to be the truth (see the sourced references at Azerbaijani Armed Forces), amounted to a situation where action under Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement seemed appropriate. I am quite happy to have my actions reviewed at any appropriate forum, but in accordance with that Arbcom ruling I believed I was acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I should note that I have some professional competence in the area; I will quite happily forward the e-mail traffic should you be interested. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You and NovaSkola are both editing Azerbaijani Armed Forces. It seems you are in a content dispute with NovaSkola and thus you are involved. I recommend you lift the block and then, if you wish, enter a request for a sanction at WP:Arbitration enforcement under ARBAA2. Another option is to open an RfC on the content issue. Issuing blocks while involved is a no-no, but if you lift the block pending review you may be able to avoid criticism. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with your words, Ed, I will now go and unblock NovaSkola. Seems that arbitration enforcement is actually the more proper course. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. I hope this can be resolved amicably and to the benefit of the article. I have looked briefly at some of the material, and I do note the following, although I'm sure there's far more to it:

1. IISS is a generally respected organisation, indeed Blandy cites the 2007 version of the work in question at footnote 56.
2. Blandy makes the point that Azerbaijan will probably hit it's peak in 2012. Therefore his estimates based primarily on a dead-link source from 2007 (footnote 55), described as "by Col Anatoliy Tsyganok, candidate of military sciences" needs must be considered outdated - moreover the Russians are allied with Armenia and may not be as dispassionate as we might wish.
3. A significant amount of the qualitative material in Blandy appears to be taken form newspaper interviews.

As I say I have no real knowledge of these matters, but these are some points that struck me as worthy of consideration.

All the best, Rich  Farmbrough, 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

First of all, thanks for unblocking. I have read Amended Remedies and Enforcement article and to avoid any conflicts or disputes between sides, I hope in future straightaway actions shouldn't be taken, especially when I have not violated any laws of Wikipedia by just citing a newspaper, plus reliable source, even though I agree newspaper information could contain not accurate information but IISS source is pretty reasonable. At any rate, I didn't do it in deliberate purpose and I also in my behalf, in future will be careful when citing some dodgy sources like that. -- NovaSkola ( talk) 00:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Editing the articles for the provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was actually the easy part. The larger task is to update all of the cities and towns in the DRC (e.g. Lubumbashi) that refer to those still non-existent provinces. A related task would be to update the subcategories of Category:Populated places in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (e.g. Category:Populated places in Haut-Katanga Province). -- Zyxw ( talk) 17:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. I came across the request on the Community forum. OttawaAC ( talk) 00:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Don4of4 ^[Talk] 22:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me Bwmoll3 ( talk) 16:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just reworked United States Air Forces Central to a similar introduction along those lines. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I swear you guys are fast :) Put a request to delete the #redirect stub for Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force and rename United States Rapid Deployment Forces as that. Just started to edit it. Remember that era very well, as I was a member of the RDF years ago and I scanned my old uniform patch Bwmoll3 ( talk) 17:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate the deletion and the move :) Using Antill, P. (2001), Rapid Deployment Force, United States, [51] as a base reference. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 18:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Rewrite is essentially complete, although I'll probably be making minor edits over the next few days. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 20:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

thank u for expanding them! there is so much outdated information about all russian army related issues and those reforms nowdays make need for faster changes in the correspondent articles Superzohar Talk 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

I think some common approach is needed on NATO exercise articles. On the one hand, some degree of background is necessary for each article to be put into context: eg with respect to current doctrine or the results of the previous similar exercise, or a change in the political situation. On the other hand, I think largely political rather than operational viewpoints are too distant from the point and overlong quotes are not useful - deprecated even per MoS etc. Is this something worth flagging up at the MilHist talkpages. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 14:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Graeme Leggett - I can see that as a valid observation, and you may want to look at my re-write of the Strategic overview section for Operation Deep Water. If this is acceptable, I would be more than happy to follow this approach in the above articles as well as any future naval or military exercise article that I may write. Marcd30319 ( talk) 15:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As a courtesy, Buckshot06, I am posting this to your talk page. On Ed17 talk page, Graeme Leggett noted that: "I think some common approach is needed on NATO exercise articles. On the one hand, some degree of background is necessary for each article to be put into context: eg with respect to current doctrine or the results of the previous similar exercise, or a change in the political situation. On the other hand, I think largely political rather than operational viewpoints are too distant from the point and overlong quotes are not useful - deprecated even per MoS etc. Is this something worth flagging up at the MilHist talkpages?" Given the fact that the Eisenhower administration developed its so-called "New Look" approach in defense strategy which emphasized massive retaliation, and this policy represents an evolution from the containment policy of the Truman administration. Also, for the U.S. Navy, historian Samuel P. Huntington set forth a naval strategy oriented to naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea. This strategic background is appropriate and essential to understanding the historical context for NATO exercises in 1957. This assertion that this is covered by other articles is not appropriate approach and does a disservice to our user audience. I therefore reverts the edited text to the original content. I strongly suggest that we examine this at talk page for this article. Marcd30319 ( talk) 13:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As a courtesy, Buckshot06, I am posting this to your talk page. The suggestion that this background information is duplicative and unnecessary is an absolute non sequitur. Please note that Naval Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe did not exist at the time of such earlier NATO Southern Region military exercise as 1952's Exercise Longstep and 1952's Exercise Grand Slam. In fact, Naval Striking and Support Forces Southern Europe (STRIKFORSOUTH) was created after the creation of Allied Forces Mediterranean (AFMED) under Lord Mountbatten, and STRIKFORSOUTH was created to maintain American control over U.S. nuclear weapons on U.S. Sixth Fleet aircraft carrier in accordance with the McMahon Act. Therefore, this background information on the command structure for Operation Deep Water is approbriate. Consequently, the assertion that this information is covered by other articles is incorrect and also does a disservice to our user audience to exclude this information for this article. I therefore reverts the edited text to the original content. I strongly suggest that we examine this at talk page for this article. Marcd30319 ( talk) 13:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Featured article candidacies and A-Class reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Buggie111 ( talk) 13:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Buckshot06/Archive 17! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The presentation of the topic of the communist phase of various armies seems to be a mixed bag on Wikipedia. Poland's has a separate article, as does the Czechoslovak People's Army and the Yugoslav People's Army (which doesn't even mention the Royal Yugoslav Army as a predecessor national military force in Yugoslavia). Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania do not appear to have separate articles although the East German Army does since it was part of a separate state.

Poland's situation will be a bit problematic since two Polish armies existed from 1943 to 1947.

This is another situation ripe for systematic bias (like the Yugoslav People's Army article not mentioning the Royal Army, or writers from eastern Europe today who are eager to forget or minimize the communist past of their countries). But given the variety of approaches existing to the topic today, I think the ideal solution would be for the MILHIST community to adopt a common approach and document the decision so that editors understand what the goal is in terms of presenting complete packages when articles on national military forces are edited.

Not sure if this helps, but may be food for thought. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 22:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think organizing the articles by state is a logical approach. My (admittedly jaded) guess is integration of the Polish and Yugo articles will generate a lot of (editor) heat but not much light -- even if consultation is done beforehand. Personally, I find it a bit confusing to come upon articles like Yugoslav People's Army that presents information as if there was no Yugoslav military tradition before the organization of the Partisan units -- so, yes, I think collapsing the articles into single presentations by state is a good idea, the reactions of hotheads that might occur notwithstanding. BTW, I just a small bit to the Royal Yugoslav Army article that mentions the Yugo brigade formed by the British in north Africa -- I'm wondering if even something that mild will generate controversy or reverts. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 16:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

From the standpoint of my personal knowledge and sources, I'd go with Poland first. I've tried to find basic facts like the date of creation about the prewar Yugoslav forces and failed. As well, I suspect because Yugoslavia later broke up into constituent states, there may be more potential for edit wars in that particular case. If Poland's articles can be consolidated, that effort can serve as an example and precedent to collapse the multiple Yugoslav articles into a single article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to look at History of the Polish Army if you haven't seen that one yet. Polish contribution to World War II has a lot of military information, but IMO suffers from statements like As Poland never made a general surrender or produced a collaborative puppet government unlike France . . .. Not sure why France is mentioned at all (this may be tied to the "western betrayal" ideas) -- and it ignores institutions like the Blue Police -- an at least pseudo-collaborationist organization (again IMO). I'm off track here, but wanted to mention some of the minefields that may be out there. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The OOB needs sources. I have provided one that partially verifies the information. I'll look around to see if I can find more sources. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 05:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Noticed this in the article: Polish Air Force: 29,126[18] (Representing [19] under "Organisation". Is the "representing" supposed to note a percentage of the armed forces or something similar? Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 05:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot, regarding the Lezgistan article. The issues were in fact settled in the talkpage. Anyway I once again named the sources and why the edits by Lezgistxa are ungrounded. Please see here and leave your feedback. Mursel ( talk) 20:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

This kind of thing wears me out. It is all the more frustrating to realize that people I have known in Namur would be happy to see this photograph in Wikipedia. Not to mention that the plaque was put up, after all, to be seen so that the community could honor and remember these four soldiers. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 08:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! On the 160th, I may be able to find out which army(ies) it supported. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 11:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to ask for outside input, please use neutral messages to avoid the appearance of canvassing. "ridiculous policy" and "seemingly unreasonable request" are definitely not neutral wording. I understand you are upset, I myself consider this type of thing ridiculous. The problem lies with the Belgian law though, not with wikipedia policies. Yoenit ( talk) 11:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I can see where this is going. The situation is absurd, but it is what it is. Rather than spend any more of your valuable time on this discussion, I would prefer that if possible, you delete the file. Thanks, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 15:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is actually still on Wikipedia vice Commons -- the file location is [52]. But I understand if you'd prefer not to perform the delete-action. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 17:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On the 160th AAA Brigade, this unit does not appear to have served using this number in the World War. One of the articles provided as an external link mentions as part of the tradition linkage the 679th Air Defense Regiment (PVO Strany), which appears to have been assigned to the Odessa Military District in 1945, and had also served in the Stalingrad and Astrakhan districts earlier in the war. Not sure where the credit for the Berlin Operation comes from. Sorry, but I can't locate anything else at the moment. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 18:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06,

My NPOV comment was in relation to the description of the roundel as FLAF - I felt it didn't need to be stated, as the former Libyan Air Force is no more, and the FLAF doesn't really exist as yet in any meaningful form, but I would say that the red/black/green tricolour roundel with crescent and star IS the de facto symbol of the Air force, whatever it is called, based on the following references, among many others:

[53], [54], [55], [56], [57], and [58]

Although as you've removed the gallery of roundels, which I agree is a sensible move, it is a fairly academic point now in any case, and perhaps best left until the dust settles in Libya :) Best wishes, Lynbarn ( talk) 21:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at this unit tonight. Kind of a twist-and-turn organizational history, but it will give a bit more meat to the article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also -- on Polish division names, my suggestion is to not use the geographical reference part of the name in the article title. It can be brought out in the article. These geo-names refer back to participation in LWP battles of the 2WW and many divisions can share the same geo-name. Seems cleaner to just refer to the divisions by their unique number and type with the "(Poland)" added. The 25th may be an exception since not many armies will have any armored cavalry divisions. Also, in Polish, the geo-names are represented in adjectival form, thus the 1st "Warsaw" Division is better translated as the 1st "Varsovian" Division . . . and I would hate to guess what the English equivalent of some of the other town names would be in adjectival form. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, meant "11th" vice "25th" above -- confusing divisions and brigades as well as types of cavalry. Cheers, W. B. Wilson ( talk) 20:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)