![]() | 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. |
As an editor who has been active in working on air force-related articles, I’d appreciate your input on a a proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles. I’d like to get broader inputs and would appreciate your suggestions on improving the proposal. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 20:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 13:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been standardizing intros for fighter aircraft, and you have reverted my edits more than once for no valid reason! Please double-check when reverting to make sure that useful parts of the edit are not reverted. If you disagree with a single change and not the other changes in an edit, please only revert that individual change. Bletent reverting waists hours of valuable editing... HyeProfile 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There is nazi propaganda as well as soviet propaganda. What's the difference between them? -- Mr. Diegos 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Now you see.-- Mr. Diegos 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Changes have been made to the article which have, among other things, lengthened the article somewhat. Would you be willing to reevaluate your stance for the A-class review? TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:LAROM2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the crash - ours prayers go out to the families. One quick question: Do you belive this evet rises to the level of notability to need a separate article? The info you have at this time could easily be mentioned on the IAR 330 in an Incedents section. A crash with so few casualites isn't usually notable on its own. I'm asking based on the limited info available, as this just happened today. However, if questions such as saftey concerns in the Romanian military, or defects in the design itself, are asked by the press or others, then it would have the potential to be notable. I am NOT going to nominate the crash page for AFD now, and don't think it'll be necessary, but someone else my do so, so you need to be prepared to prove notabilty. I consider you a competant editor, and my questions are in no way aimed at hurting you or being needlessly critical. If you need any help on the page, feel free to ask, and do what I can. - BillCJ 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your response. I did realize it just happeneded, and that little info is available, but wanted to see if you thought enough would be forthcoming to assert notability. I've asked Alan, and admin and regular contributor to crash articles, for comments. He is generally very fair, and will give his honest opinion. Other users, especially those from the deletionist cabal, will not be so considerate! BTW, you did a GREAT job putting that page together so quickly.! - BillCJ 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there some particular reason it needs to be closed now, rather than whenever the day's nominations all get closed? (I try to avoid closing deletion discussions on military topics, for the most part, to avoid the appearance of being motivated by WPMILHIST doctrine.) Kirill 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! Dapiks 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The Romanian part of the Batalionul Multinational de Geniu "TISA", is the 52nd Engineer Btn, HQ at Satu Mare, so it's not a dif btn. Batalionul 1 Instructie Transmisiuni could be an auxiliary unit of the 2nd Brigade, as well as an sub-unit of an Military education centre. Regarding the 7th btn, i'll have to do some further searches. Best, ---- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! Dapiks ( talk) 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems I've discovered some major changes in the 4th Terit. Army Corps:
I've requested Noclador to make the changes in the OrBat graphic. Meanwhile, I'll update the structures. -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 09:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, OrBat update Done. with the exception of the "??MP battalion in
Focşani under the 1st Army Corps" as adding this one, would throw the entire structure of the graphic into chaos (not enough space anymore). Next time a major update like this is needed, I will add it with the other units and rearrange the graphic than. Cheers, --
noclador (
talk) 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Done
see here. Re. 4th Log./ Eng. Brig. if you look closely you will see that the Eng. units are not under the 4th Log. Brig, but under like it under the 4th Corps. I did not yet make a own column for the 4th Logistic as we do not know yet any units. As soon as we know its units I will give it a own column. --
noclador (
talk) 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm presently assessing #s 23000-23500 in the Assessment Drive. I have a question about how to assess a page, namely, Muhammad_Zaki, which redirects to Pakistan Army. Now, do I just strike through the entry, and consider it not a part of the MILHIST Project? Thanks Sniperz11 talk| edits 01:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You can assess it on WPMILHIST as a Non-article. For example "WPMILHIST |class=NA". -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 12:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Eurocopter. You seem to have a problem with including a brief description of the cockpit for the Dassault Rafale? It seems strange that compared with the other comparable platforms - F-18, F-22, Eurofighter, Gripen, JSF - the article currently says nothing about the cockpit. You might expect Dassualt themselves to have defense secrets to keep and a commercial axe to grind, but your User Page suggests you're more independant. Ain't that the case? Or do ya know something we don't? 20.133.0.13 ( talk) 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to resend that email again? Might be better discussed that way I think. I checked my spam and everything- can't work out where it went. Regards Buckshot06 ( talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Just have a look more carefully on them, they are not under the 4th brigade. -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Eurocopter, my sincere apologies for this awkward move, I hope you didn't judge this confusion too harshly, only now did I pick it up. I'll try to explain. At this time I was going through some trouble with my username, it was user:counterstrike69 but I simply redirected my page to user:Bogdan and signed as Bogdan. So for several weeks, when I got into trouble for my actions I was using the counterstrike69 talk page and not the Bogdan one. When I sorted all that out ( went to WP:Changing username) my user was fully renamed user:Bogdan, so I just took my newer talk page from user talk:counterstrike and pasted it onto user talk:Bogdan. Somehow your post went unnoticed and when I made a cut-and-paste move of my page from user talk:counterstrike69 (where you didn't post) it deleted any posts that were made on user talk:Bogdan between 01:48, 18 October and 11:14, 27 October, I just didn't notice as I figured all comments at that time would be made at the counterstrike69 page (as the redirect was gone). Once again I apologize, I will translate 150th rifle division for you tomorrow :-), best regards, Bogdan що? 04:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That's ok, no problem. Cheers, -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 12:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Howdy there. I've expanded the article, lead and added pictures. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ Infobox Military Conflict}} can be used for just about anything if you leave off the combatants and everything below. Kirill 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I just ran across the ROMBAC 1-11, and it's pretty skimpy at the moment. It's had a merge tag on it since August 07, but no has even started a merge section at Talk:BAC One-Eleven yet. There even seems to be some confusion on the talk page over whether any of them ever entered service. Could you take a look, and see if you think the Rombac 1-11 page has potential to make a better orticle or not? Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 05:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Page is now a redirect. - BillCJ 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome, I intend to focus on WWII and I have joined that task force. Harland1 13:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:P-20M.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:P-15M.jpg. The copy called Image:P-15M.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 14:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:P-20M.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chick Bowen 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Chick Bowen 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The
November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: lists shouldn't be tagged with class=NA, since they can go up the assessment scale towards FL status; NA is really only meant for disambiguation pages and the like. Thanks! :-) Kirill 19:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia/Archive 1#Beevor as a reference -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you check the wikilinks for the article please. I changed Chilia to Chilia Veche, but I am unsure. Some other links might need to be checked. I have changed the infobox to Template:Infobox Military Conflict and I have fixed all the references that used the ref name format. (I think I caught them all). You only need the full reference once, then use the ref name code. Regards Woodym555 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Salut. You've asked me before about RoLF tanks. I've come across two sites that might answer your question. One clearly points out that the number of TR-85 M1 is not over 300 as previously thought. In fact I would like to see a source that mentions 300-350 modernized TR-85 M1s. This site mentions a plan to modernize just 56 of them [13]. This makes sense since as we previously noticed, only one bat. in the RoLF actually has the TR-85 M1. The other Bat. has the old T-55s.
Here is another site, which might help us with completing the Military Equipment page [www.mapn.ro/eveniment/2007/200711/20071126_1/documentar.doc].
Cheers. Dapiks ( talk) 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but how about the TR-85s? I really don't think that there are no TR-85s in our inventory.. -- Eurocopter tigre 14:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The site is quite good, even if I don't know if it is up-to-date. However, I noticed a strange thing (I don't know if you are familiar with the air force), one of the MiG-29s was produced in 1994. That means it was phased out after 9 years of service?!?! That's extremely low for an aircraft such an MiG-29. Best, - Eurocopter tigre 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It was not produced in 1994. I was bought from Moldova for some Romanian TABs that Romania gave to the RM. It was much older than 9 years old, but the year only marks the date when it entered its service with the RoAF. Dapiks ( talk) 02:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the site mostly contains eq. that can no longer be used. So it doesn't say much about the eq. currently in the RoLF. However, what it does do is that it gives us a hint as to the numbers we need to subtract from the 1375 tanks or +2000 APCs and stuff like that. Dapiks ( talk) 02:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that you are still confusing civilian personnel with reserve personnel. In Romania, all men have their Livret militar containing their rank + location in which the military service was fullfilled (for example, in wartime, I would be a sergeant) - that's actually the reserve force of Romania. -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 21:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You asked for a month at this AfD, and nothing's been done to the article. Please let me know your intentions, beecause consensus was to delete if the month went by and the compromise conditions weren't met. AKRadecki Speaketh 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
EcT, could you take a look at [ this diff, and the Romanian-language sources? As I understand it, the Lancer/LanceR is a specific upgrade of the MiG-21 produced in Romania. If it is the Lancer being replaced by the Gripen or Typhoon, not just older MiG-21s, when we need to be specific about that. Thanks. - BillCJ ( talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, This is just an invitation to get together at the Operation Barbarossa discussion page and see if the article can't be improved to the FA level. I am going to try and firstly restructure and later rewrite the article in my sandbox (firstly at home on my PC), but I have already discussed some ideas with one other contributor and would appreciate more input from members of the task force.-- Mrg3105 ( talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how you were the one to rename that article, perhaps you might consider joining the relevant discussion? -- Illythr ( talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! -- R O A M A T A A | msg 17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)