User talk:Noclador/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Ref section

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Whenever you wish to add a reference, the easy way is to type <ref>http://www.ThisIsMyReference.com/whatever.htm</ref>

The second part of the trick is adding a new section near the bottom of the article ("See also" is normally placed after the ref. section):

==References== {{reflist}}

That's it really. If you wish to quote books, see e.g. an example at Isted Lion for how I normally do it. And thanks for fixing the talk page :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. Please don't misunderstand me, but please make sure that you stay clear of violating WP:3RR just in case things get ugly on that page. I'd personally never do more than 2 reverts to a page a day, and I wouldn't do more than 1 a day either if I can in any way avoid it. You are a valuable contributor, and I'd hate to see you blocked for edit warring. Regards. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the update. And if you need proofreading of geographical names, I'll do my best to be of assistance. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, I noticed a typo on Image:Danish Army.png. There is one E too many in the Electronic Warfare Coy. (Fredericia, third column). Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

fr:Modèle:Images

Hello,

This template works along with a JavaScript function, which you can find at fr:MediaWiki:Common.js ♦ Pabix 05:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To be more precise, it starts at the line

function toggleImage(group, remindex, shwindex) {

and ends at the line

addOnloadHook(ImageGroup);

But this template is rather experimental, I am not really encouraging its use for articles since it can cause some accessibility problems (printable version should be OK, but images displayed vertically in it; and moreover, it seems that code is not perfectly working on IE or Safari. Have a nice day! ♦ Pabix 05:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Important Armies, Non-Present in the 'To Do" List

There are several countries with increased possibility of engaging in combat in the near future, non-present in you plans. First of all these are Iran and Syria. Then, you have Armenia present in your to do plan, while you don't have Azerbaijan there. The only possible opponent of Armenia in the near future is Azerbaijan, so it makes sense to have armies of both of them. Just as in case of Israel and Syria.

Besides, there is Vietnam, the second possible opponent of China after Taiwan.

Also, Egypt - one of the most important and militarily strong players on the Middle East.

What about Ethiopia, whose large army is engaged in combat right now and is likely to be engaged in the future as well?

Anyway, thank you for these beautiful graphs :) Pirveli 18:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, concerning Iran, I'm afraid you could turn out to be over-optimistic. It is possible that it won't be crushed, if we consider the unhealthy inner political situation in the US and general developments in the Middle East region. Attack is possible, but not inevitable. Even less probable is the attack of such a might that will destroy most of Iran's military. Thus, I'm afraid Iran's military graph may be important in the future.:) Concerning Ethiopia, it's different from the rest of sub-Saharan nations in civilizational, historical and political terms. It views itself (and virtually is) as a bastion of Christianity defending itself in the Muslim surroundings. It's military proved to be quite effective in the resent war against the Islamist regime that was on the way of re-uniting Somalia under its rule. Pirveli 17:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Then lets hope, tah it will happen, and will happen in a proper way.

Yes, I am from Georgia. I have checked the site. Regretfully, it contains in Georgian absolutely the same information, as in English. And that you already have on your graph.

The only on thing: there is the general structure of the armed forces:

   * Land Forces
   * Navy
   * Air Forces
   * National Guard
   * Logistic support Department with subordinated units
   * Communication and information systems;
   * Military Police
   * Special Forces Brigade
   * Military education and training Department with subordinated institutions and units 

which means that a SF Brigade should be added. This brigade is not under the Ground forces Command, and is controlled by the Chief of Joint Stuff directly. Pirveli 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Applause

Good on you mate! :-) [1] Icsunonove 06:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IDF Questions by User:Keiththejarhead

--[User:Keiththejarhead] this is my first time on Wikipedia so please forgive me if this does not script out too coherently, I'm going to need some practice at this. I am the person who created and donated the IDF Ground Forces and General Staff orders of battle on Globalsecurity. I am an American with no ability to read or speak Hebrew and my sources were all open, English language ones. The IDF official website, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, ISayeret.com, WarOnline, IDF Wikipedia, USIDFvets, etc.. I am thrilled at the information that Flayer has provided to correct mistakes on my OOB. All I am interested in is accuracy and I have always intended my IDF oob's as a tribute to the abilities, inovations and sacrifices of the IDF in the past and today.

I do have a few questions for Flayer concerning the IDF that I hope is open source/common knowledge in Israel. Concerning the logistics regiments discussed above-- In Haaretz I believe they discussed that each division does have a logistics regiment, but that the IDF is considering taking the divisional logistics regiments away and concentrating them in regional command logistics super units. I believe the 36th and 162nd divisions' logistics units are composed of active duty troops. Are the reserve only logistics regiments Regional Command units or divisional units?

Also, does the IDF still have the Regional/District armor bn's [GASHAP] as they did in 1967 and 1973 (181st and 182nd for example)?

Concerning some of the Reserve armor divisions-- I had heard that two armor divisions were to be deactivated. In fact I read that the "Plada" division had been deactivated (it was the 38th or 48th Division I believe). The 340th Division of Central Command has the 5th Infantry Brigade (they were both in Haaretz with the 2002 operations in the West Bank and the 5th Brigade was the parent unit of the reservists still prisoners of Hezbollah in lebanon). I have the names of several divisions-- Idan, Eyosh and Felda. First, is the 5th Brigade named "Givati" like it was in 1949 (which personnaly i doubt because of 84th Brigade now) and can you tell me what the English translation of Idan, Eyosh and Felda are? In Israeli publications 'formation' is often used for 'division/ugdah'. I have an 85th Division often referred to in Isayeret.com as "Otsa Kela David". An d my references for the 143rd, 146th and 210th Divisions were from Yom Kippur War divisions. So it's pretty obvious my info may be pretty dated or 'speculative'.

On the Territorial Divisions and brigades. Is the Judea and Samaria Division the 96th Division and the Gaza Division the 90th Division? It is very interesting to find out the 80th is a Territorial Division. Would the "Arava" and "Sagi" Territorial brigades be numbered 72nd or 99th?

thanks for any info you can give and for all the great stuff you have already done. Keiththejarhead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiththejarhead (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[2] Flayer 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ringraziamento (thanks)

La ringrazio per il "Barnstar" (thank you for the Barnstar). --Brunodam 20:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And congratulations for the nice design of the barnstar!--Supparluca 06:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Estonian Army

Thanks for the help and support.I will add your image as soon as I have finished the main frame. I have vision how the page :) Just making it better and more interesting.I have a problem with the Maavägi page. As I am not very advanced about net coding and wikipedia itself I am afraif tht the page will be deleted as it shows that spedy deletion is going to happen to the page i created. Can you please help me with that or save the page from speedy deletion???

Hi!

I was wondering if you could create the Estonian Air Force flag and emblem for me? I am myself an Estonian yet it very hard to find ones. The reason is that we practically dont have any air force in the true meaning. 2015-2020 is the period when the EAF will receive probably fighter and combat helicopters.Insert non-formatted text here

Hi!

I was wondering if you could create the Estonian Air Force flag and emblem for me? I am myself an Estonian yet it very hard to find ones. The reason is that we practically dont have any air force in the true meaning. 2015-2020 is the period when the EAF will receive probably fighters and combat helicopters.Insert non-formatted text here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karabinier (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

About Roitr

Thanks for the heads up, I have actually been notified of this guy's activity in the past. From talking to him here, I have gathered that he isn't actually a serious vandal, but a user who wants to contribute but simply doesn't really know what he's talking about, in most cases. He also seems to have a poor command of both Hebrew and English, which harms his edits on Israeli army-related articles for sure. Haven't really been involved in any of his other cases. A letter/call/e-mail to Bezeq International from me might help, as I've been their customer for years (and frankly quite satisfied, best ISP in the country IMO), although at the moment I don't see the immediate need. Maybe later if talking doesn't help.

On a side note, you might want to check out a couple things I've done here and here.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Been keeping an eye out on Roitr, thanks for the help. --Aldis90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldis90 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Roitr sockpuppet Skafult keeps reverting erroneous articles on PRC military ranks, any help would be great... ---Aldis90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldis90 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this vandal. Personally I don't really care if his motivation to contribute is genuine or not. In the end, it all boils down to the same pattern: he reads and misinterprets something, then starts inserting his misinterpretation to the articles, providing no viable proof, then starts using sockpuppets to evade protects and blocks. This behaviour is clearly a serious vandalism, for which he has been banned after my request. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Hi Noclador, could you please update the OrBat in the Romanian Land Forces? The 51st Anti-aircraft Missiles Regiment "Pelendava", HQ at Craiova, is under the 1st Territorial Army Corps. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Ground Forces

There are a number of issues here:

• units are probably cadre-ised to a great degree, like the Russian unit tables are.
• When dealing with Soviet-tradition unit sizes you have to completely throw Western ideas of unit size out the window. Eg. A Western tank company will have 100+ personnel, while a Sov tank company would have 40 (in four-crew tanks) and 30 (in three-crew tanks). Unit sizes are very very much smaller because half the 'essential' for Western armies combat service support is all consolidated in higher formations and half may not be there at all. Best reference for you would be an online copy of Inside the Soviet Army by Viktor Suvorov - there is one around if you look.
• short answer: give battalions II and companies I, as per usual, and ignore your worries on appropriate size of brigades. The Soviet-tradition formations have the fighting power and equipment of equivalent Western formations (or sometimes larger: 16-17 [smallish] manouvre battalions, four in each of four regiment's plus divisional commander's own battalion in a Soviet TD/MRD), while having much less manpower. Feel free to ask further clarification questions... Buckshot06 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Noclador, I've just reverted your update to the Military of Ukraine. Why? Because you changed the units and figures without removing or changing the note that said the information came from IISS Military Balance. So you would have said the info came from the IISS when it didn't. Please change or remove the source note above the listings if you want to change the info! As for inserting it based on Ceriy's data, I don't think you should do it, because at the moment Ceriy's data is WP:OR, a synthesis of forum data etc. If you'd like to insert it, leave the IISS data unchanged, saying that's 06 data, and also say under it that various informal investigations say now it's changed to X; leave both, WITH SOURCES!!! Cheers Buckshot06 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response Noclador. I don't really care about the frigate issue, but basically the magazine referred to is Russian, and may as well be included what a Russian expert commentator says. Much much more important is the Military of Ukraine sourcing issue. You have answered my question without, it seems, noticing the last two words of my note above. The data is better, more accurate, I agree, but you changed it to say the IISS said something it did not say. If somebody checked the IISS entry after your edit, they would have found wikipedia said something false. All you have to do is put in.. 'for Air Force figures, IISS XYZ, for Army figures, Ukrainian White Book p.91' - two <ref> tags and it's further on the way to FA status, rather than someone having to fix it afterwards. Do you understand the point I'm making? We MUST cite our sources every time or Military of Ukraine will never reach the point Russian Ground Forces is at. I'll quite happily fix things up, with the citation, but do you understand the point I'm making? Best regards Buckshot06 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one in that situation. In various jobs and positions I've acquired a lot of data I cannot post here, and lots of data which is absolutely accurate but can't be sourced. Please also be careful that you don't go distorting previously cited material when you introduce new data. Please don't hesitate to ask me at all if you want help on any of those issues (or anything else for that matter- your structure diagrams project is groundbreaking Confidence-building measures type work, as per the OSCE and all.) It's really good. Which army is next? Buckshot06 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer's here. [[3]] Remove the text and note the URL etc on the talk page. If its all a copyvio, but from separate pages I don't know. List it a copyvio problems, for sure. The Russian Ground Forces? Even the General Staff don't know where everything is(see the note in the personnel section)! I would really encourage you to do a division/brigade level listing - I have all the information, and the chart would be pretty simple, for example, for the Leningrad Military District - district HQ plus two motor rifle brigades, plus the BXVTs (Bases for the storage of weapons and equipment)! Cheers Buckshot06 01:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've listed the page for speedy deletion. South (and North) Korea? A first guess can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsianDefense/, along with the author's contact details - he sounds like user:keiththejarhead, as his name is Keith Rowe. Turkey is completely non-transparent, and your best bet would be to find a Turk-speaker to translate the TAF homepage. I'm making progress (see the Turkish Army page) but not too much. Again, I really encourage you to make a try at a brigade/div breakdown of the Russian Ground Forces; that's the only level you'll get, for example, for the Chinese PLA. Cheers Buckshot06 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We are making progress on the RGF. Look at the recent changes for the Far East Military District for example; I've just discovered the battalion numbers for the 40th MR Bde (now Naval Infantry, it seems). There are also lots of non-official details on the PLA and you could easily do a PLA diagram, as long as you put as disclaimer on it. OK - Russian Ground Forces. Tell me which district (or maybe you want to start with the Airborne Forces - I can give you regimental level data for that) and I will recheck my data and send you a listing of what appears to be the latest status. Please, one thing, are you able to put a note on the chart itself saying that this is provisional information and not fully authenticated? Cheers Buckshot06 14:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Noclador, thanks for the chart. Look, the information in the wikipedia pages at the moment is very incomplete. For the charts, I'm going to open my best source up and be able to work it through district by district; signals regiments, equipment bases, artillery brigades, attack hel regiments etc. But I am also in Washington just about to fly out for New Zealand. I cannot sort this out right now. I recommend we hold off for five days, and then work through the force diagrams district by district - can we do that? In about 5-7 days I'll send you the first list - Leningrad or the VDV, as you wish. Is that ok? Cheers Buckshot06 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Military of East Timor

Hi, would you be interested in doing an Orbat graphic for the Military of East Timor? I'm working on bringing this article up to FA standard and this would really help. The military's structure seems fairly simple, and the only thing I'm unclear about is the number and type of support units (eg, there's an MP unit, but I'm not sure how big it is and there must also be some small logistics, training and communications units). --Nick Dowling 02:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really good. However, there's also a seperate Military Police unit (which I think is a company). --Nick Dowling 07:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate it. --Nick Dowling 08:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bamboo is Blooming, Long Live the VDV

The source for this material is http://www8.brinkster.com/vad777/glavn.htm’s Airborne Forces page, accessed 12 November 2007, and Kommersant-Vlast, 2005. Additional units only listed in Kommersant-Vlast, 2005, include an independent engineer-sapper battalion, what appears to be a separate air defence battery, and a second specialist VDV clinical hospital in the North Caucasus MD.

There are also two airborne brigades and a further regiment which are now part of the Ground Forces.

• Headquarters, Airborne Forces Moscow
  • 242nd Training Centre of Airborne Forces Omsk/Ishim, Siberian Military District
    • 226th Airborne Training Regiment Omsk
    • 285th Airborne Training Regiment Omsk
    • 1120th Artillery Training Regiment Ishim
    • 266th (267) Sep. Military Transport Aviation Squadron Chkalovskiy (Severny)
  • 45th Separate Reconnaissance Regiment of SPETSNAZ Kubinka/Moscow (208th, 901st Battalions)
  • 58th Separate Military Transport Aviation Squadron Ryazan-Dyagilevo, Moscow MD
  • 38th Separate Communications Regiment of the VDV Medvezhi Ozera, Moscow MD
  • Central Military Clinical Hospital of the VDV Tula, Moscow MD
  • Higher Airborne Command School Ryazan, Moscow MD
  • 76th Guards Air Assault Division (contract service) Pskov, Leningrad Military District
    • 104th Guards Airborne Regiment Cherekha (Pskov suburb)
    • 234th Guards Airborne Regiment Pskov
    • 1140th Guards Artillery Regiment Pskov
    • 242nd Sep. Military Transport Aviation Squadron Pskov (Mi-8, An-2)
  • 98th Guards Airborne Division (contract service) Ivanovo, Moscow Military District
    • 217th Guards Airborne Regiment Ivanovo
    • 331st Guards Airborne Regiment Kostroma
    • 1065th Guards Artillery Regiment Kostroma
    • 243rd Sep. Military Transport Aviation Squadron Ivanovo (Mi-8, An-2)
  • 106th Guards Airborne Division Tula, Moscow Military District
    • 51st Guards Airborne Regiment Tula
    • 137th Guards Airborne Regiment Ryazan’
    • 205th Guards Artillery Regiment Yefremov
    • 110th Sep. Military Transport Aviation Squadron Tula (Mi-8, An-2)
  • 7th Guards Air Assault Division Novorossiksk, North Caucasus MD
    • 247th Guards Air Assault Regiment Stavropol
    • 108th Guards Airborne Regiment Novorossiksk
    • 1141st Guards Artillery Regiment Anapa
    • 185th Sep. Military Aviation Squadron Krymskaya
  • 31st Guards Airborne Brigade (498th, 499th Battalions) Ulyanovsk, Volga-Urals Military District (500th Battalion disbanded 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noclador —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noclador, I had forgotten that site but it's a good one. Thanks very much for the chart; I only have one issue. My extracts from FM-100-2-3 (1984) the official US manual on the Soviet Army's organisation, Russian official documentation I've seen, and Carey Schofield's Inside the Soviet Army, 1991, all emphasise the fact that sometimes the Soviet and now Russian Armies have battalions with very few personnel, but all concerned, US and Soviet and Russian, refer to them as battalions. For example, a medical battalion of 123 personnel - cadre-ised, for example with a ('C'-I think) division in 1989 at a strength of 20. Other examples are SSM battalions of 170 personnel and anti-tank battalions of 195. However they are always referred to as battalions - it's the fighting power equivalent, with the CSS that Western battalions have integral is actually held somewhere else (higher echelons). For that reason I'd like you to change the symbol back to II rather than I, if you wouldn't mind. Seem fair? - just a different military system. Buckshot06 03:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador and also thanks for the chevrons. In line with our discussions earlier on Ukraine, would you mind modifying either the image page or the chart itself for the VDV to include a source note, maybe something like 'Sourced from warfare.ru, brinkster.com, (both October 2007) and Kommersant-Vlast 2005?' It'd be good to put the JDW article reference on the SA chart or chart page as well. Just a few lines in a corner, maybe. Buckshot06 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces OrBat update

Hi Noclador, could you please make some updates to the RoLF graphic?

• 7th Artillery Battalion under the 69th Mixed Artillery Brigade;
• 1st Military Police Battalion (Bucharest) under the 1st Terit. Army Corps;
• 55th Signal rgt becomes 55th Signal btn;
• 4th Engineer Brg becomes the 4th Engineer Btn and its units are now directly subordinated to the 4th Terit Army Corps command.
• We have an  ??MP battalion based in Târgu Mureş, under the 4th Army Corps;
• An ??MP battalion in Focşani, under the 1st Army Corps;
• We have the 4th Logistics Brigade (Dej), under the 4th Army Corps.
• 55th Air Defense btn (Dej), 817 Mixed Art. btn (Prundu Bârgăului) and 405th Logistics btn under the 81st Mec Brg;
• 206th,228th and 229th btns from the 2nd Mountain Troops brg are headquartered at Braşov.
• 3rd Air Defense Battalion (Focşani) under the 282nd Mec. brg;

Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A graphic for the 8th Mixed Artillery Brigade (Romania) would be very welcome! Could you please do it? Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found the following errors in the graphic:

• there is certainly no engineer btn under 15th brg;
• 405th log. btn. is headquartered at Bistriţa;

Also, thanks for your previous quick response on 8th brigade. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

hey

• will they ever leave me alone? [4] Icsunonove (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Funeral for a Fiend reply

There are strict rules for what should be included on the Cultural References section of Simpsons episodes. We try to only include the main ones, and only have actual references instead of "Cultural mentions", or things that are talked about only briefly. Marge saying names of TV shows is not a reference, but just a mention of the shows. The commercials are more along the lines of trivia, which we also try to avoid. Also, those have been added and removed from the article before, you are not the first to include them. And trust me, if I did not revert your, someone else would, some users patrol the articles and take out anything minor. Its too bad, but thats the way it is. Rhino131 (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Rhino131 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you actually think that proper sourcing is a joke, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place for you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

" it is so obvious to me" I'd be willing to bet that most people outside of the States most likely wouldn't get the reference after they first saw it, so it needs a source. As for the Sesame Street thing, Moe actually says it's Sesame Street and he mentions Derek Jeter by name, so that counts as the source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Everything needs to be verifiable, per WP:V. And using the episode itself as a ref isn't acceptable. For an example of a good cultural references section, look at A Streetcar Named Marge. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Funeral for a Fiend. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.Ctjf83 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the episode, but give me a comparison right next to the real pic then, even thought it isn't really a good ref. Ctjf83 23:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Greco-Italian War

David Irving is a Holocaust denier, a racist neo-nazi etc. And? What's your point? Is romacivica.net a more reliable source? 62.103.147.54 (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian forces

Are you able now to starting thinking about the next chart for the Russian forces, or are you still on holiday? Either way, happy new year! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's still correct - please go ahead and create the chart. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're in RAIDS

Here is page 37 from the January's edition article on the Finnish Defence Forces. So, you're published now :o I hope they did credit you and not whoever translated it into French. If not, I am so-o-o-o-o gonna give them a phonecall >:( Russoswiss (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't find any Wikicredit or anything like that. The photographs used in the article are credited, then there is a "thank you" box to some military attachés, but nothing about you or Wikipedia. So, I guess you could poke them with an e-mail and ask for clarifications. Russoswiss (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Any time! I know that making these OrBats is not simple, as I admit to stealing your style and nice boxes to make OrBats of imaginary units for science-fiction story telling matters. And when I stumbled upon that page, I immediately recognised the style and just had to open my big wide mouth. Or, in the present context, spread my thin long fingers. All in all, I would not be surprised if it's just a misunderstanding, but I deem that you should be credited for your excellent work. I've added the relevant page and issue information to your Staff request entry, might help if the issue is brought up with the editorial. Russoswiss (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RAIDS February Edition has an article on the Romanian Armed Forces, written by Charles-Antoine De Clairmontagne. Here is page 53 of the magazine. I believe you should poke them again. Russoswiss (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those f*** c***!!! I wrote them and clearly explained that they can not do this! They didn't even answer me! I will write them once more and if they do not react, I will sue - this is shameless arrogant thievery! --noclador (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, well, just take it easy and politely and be sure to dispatch a letter to one Raidsadress with a CC to another Raidsadress. If no reply comes in a couple days, repeat. Maybe they didn't get your previous letter, especially if you only sent it once. E-mails can be quite tricky at times. Russoswiss (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, I hope it all gets resolved properly then. On an unrelated note, checked the Schweizer Luftwaffle link? Russoswiss (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're in Military Technology's World Defence Almanac 2008

Hi Noclador. Someone else is infringing your copyright. Your Hungarian Joint Force Command chart is in the January 2008 World Defence Almanac, p.164, with '(Source: Hungarian MoD)' as the source tag. Let me know if I can do anything to help. Best regards, Buckshot06(prof) 05:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Monch (o with two dots over it) Publishing Group it is. Their email appears to be miltech@moench-group.com, Tel: +49 228 6483-0. Email me and I'll scan the the page in question and send it to you along with all the contact details. If you like - actually, aren't you in Italy? - their Italian office is listed as RID - Mr. Franco Lazzari, Tel: +39-01 85 30 15 98, franco.lazzari@rid.it.

Yes, that German number is from their office at HeilbachstraBe 26, 53123 Bonn, Germany. I've received your email address and will scan and send the picture over the weekend. Best regards, Buckshot06(prof) 09:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the new pics in RAIDS question

RAIDS 263, April 2008, page 44 shows without any credit to anyone the coats of arms found on the Folgore Parachute Brigade page, namely the insignias of 185th Parachutist Recon Reg, 9th "Col Moschin" Reg, 8th Parachute Engineer Reg, 187th Parachute Reg. Otherwise, no, have not seen anything. But I have not seen any Errata on reattributing the Finnish and Romanian charts properly in any review since then, either. Russoswiss (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't do much, as I just read the magazines. So, good luck in your endeavours! After all, if there was an errata and I just somehow managed to miss it, they can always simply answer your email by saying "We've put a proper errata". Russoswiss (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		Milhist Coordinator election
		Thank you very much for your support in the recent Military history Wikiproject election. I'm more than happy to serve the project for another six months! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Russian-Circassian War

25th ID Battalion/Brigade Names

Just thought I might put in my two cents. For 25th ID, 2nd Brigade mascot is the Warriors and 3rd Brigade is Broncos. Additionally 1/14 Infantry is the Golden Dragons, 1/21 Infantry is the Gimlets (a type of auger - Motto is "Bore, Brother, Bore") and 1/27 is the Wolfhounds same as 2/27. Tigey (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

London District

First of all, the line infantry battalion has just changed - it is now 2RRF, not 2 MERCIAN. Secondly, the incremental companies are not part of the 2nd Battalions, because the 2nd Battalions DO NOT EXIST. Thirdly, the incremental companies are not stationed at Royal Artillery Barracks, they are stationed at Wellington Barracks. Fourthly, the incremental companies have a page of their own on Wikipedia, which perfectly explains what precisely they are. Fifthly, Cavalry Barracks has not yet closed, and 2RRF is stationed there, not at Woolwich. As regards the image, given that I have had to advise you about such images before (I refer to the 3 CDO BDE one that you insisted on uploading with incorrect information), I'd advise that you cease putting in specific units for floating formations, which include ready brigades of the British Army, as they will invariably end up being out of date when units move to different postings, as they do in London District. Hammersfan 30/04/08, 12.20 BST

Orbat images

The first mistake you are making is to have units of the same regiment under the command of different formations - an example are the squadrons of the Queen's Own Yeomanry or companies of the 4th Bn, Parachute Regiment. It is the battalion/regiment you need to follow. In these cases, both the QOY and 4 PARA come under the administrative command of 15 Bde. I have noticed you have put sub-units based in Scotland under 51 Bde - the brigade website states merely that these are TA units stationed in Scotland, not those that are under the command of the Brigade. Another thing I have noticed with this example is the presence of an SAS squadron - all SF units, whether they are regular or TA come under UKSF.

As regards 16 AA Bde, this is nominally under the control of JHC - operationally it is an independent unit that can be deployed either on its own (as it has been to Afghanistan) or as part of a larger divisional formation. For the purposes of administration, because its Headquarters is at Aldershot, it falls under the command of 5 Division. At present, it has attached two bns of the Parachute Regiment, plus 2 line infantry bns in the airborne infantry role (5 SCOTS, 1 R IRISH). In 2010 one of these will be replaced by the UK Gurkha bn. I'll have a look at some of the other stuff and get back. Hammersfan 30/04/08, 15.22 BST

UK Army links

for my own use:

• 15 (NE) Brig: http://www.army.mod.uk/15brigade/ta_rebalancing.htm
• 51 (Scottish) Brig: http://www.army.mod.uk/51bde/ta_units_in_scotland/index.htm

11th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom)

• 11 Light Brigade Headquarters and Signal Squadron (261)
• The Household Cavalry Regiment
• 1st Battalion, Grenadier Guards
• 3rd Battalion, The Rifles
• 1st Battalion, The Royal Welsh (Royal Welch Fusiliers)
• 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment (14th/15th, 19th & 33rd/76th Foot) (Green Howards)
• 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery
• 28 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers
• 10 Queen's Own Gurkha Logistic Regiment

British Army

The 3 MERCIAN thing was a typo on my part - it is 3 YORKS attached to 12 Bde. The same goes with the 1 R ANGLIAN, because it is 4 RIFLES attached to 1 Bde
Support units are divisional troops true, and so are not part of the brigade as such, but they are permanently attached to brigades. For example, each divsion has a Divisional Artillery Group (DAG), which detaches artillery regiments permanently to all arms brigades. The way you have laid it out suggests that they can be recalled to the DAG to move to another formation, which is not the case. the same goes for engineers, and for combat service support from the logistic brigade.
Yes, 2RRF will be attached to London District, but the advent of 11 Light Brigade for service in Afghanistan in 2009-2010 has meant that several infantry battalions have had to be rearranged. 2RRF will be on public duties in London, and ergo part of London District, but it will also be utilised as the light role battalion to 12 Mech for the duration of 11 Bde's service, which means that it will probably be deployed for service overseas at some point when 12 Mech's turn comes up
As for using the attachments on the British Army Infantry page, what you need to remember is that they are the planned attachments once the last round of the arms plot ends, which is due in around 2010, based on the information I obtained from the Ministry of Defence. Also remember that this doesn't take into account the new brigade announced last year for service in Afghanistan Hammersfan, 05/05/08, 17.14 BST

It's the infantry

Pretty much every arm has a fixed unit in a brigade except the infantry. I think I've managed to glean out exactly who is currently stationed with which formation:

• Armoured Infantry
  • 1 SG - 4 Mech Bde
  • 4 SCOTS - 7 Armd Bde
  • 3 YORKS - 12 Mech Bde
  • 2 R WELSH - Land Warfare Centre
  • 3 MERCIAN - 1 Mech Bde
  • 1 PWRR - 20 Armd Bde
  • 1 RRF - 7 Armd Bde
  • 5 RIFLES - 20 Armd Bde
• Mechanised Infantry
  • 1 LANCS - 4 Mech Bde
  • 1 R ANGLIAN - 12 Mech Bde
  • 4 RIFLES - 1 Mech Bde
• Light Infantry (Incl air assault and public duties)
  • 1 GREN GDS - 11 Light Bde
  • 1 IG - 1 Mech Bde
  • 5 SCOTS - 16 AA Bde
  • 1 MERCIAN - 1 Mech Bde
  • 1 R WELSH - (about to join 11 Light Bde)
  • 2 PARA - 16 AA Bde
  • 3 PARA - 16 AA Bde
  • 1 WG - London Dist
  • 2 RRF - 12 Mech Bde/London Dist
  • 2 RGR - 52 Inf Bde
  • 1 R IRISH - 16 AA Bde
  • 2 YORKS - 11 Light Bde
  • 1 CLDM GDS - London Dist
  • 1 SCOTS - 19 Light Bde
  • 2 SCOTS - 52 Inf Bde
  • 3 RIFLES - 11 Light Bde
  • 3 SCOTS - 19 Light Bde
  • 1 RIFLES - 3 Cdo Bde
  • 2 RIFLES - 19 Light Bde
  • 2 MERCIAN - 19 Light Bde
  • 1 RGR - Brit Garr Brunei
  • 2 PWRR - Brit For Cyp
  • 2 LANCS - (about to move to Cyprus)
  • 2 R ANGLIAN - 7 Armd Bde
  • 1 YORKS - 20 Armd Bde
    Hammersfan 05/05/08, 17.48 BST

Again, please excuse the typo - 1 MERCIAN is the light role bn in 4 Mech. 9/12 L is the Divisional Recce Regt for 1 Armd Div, and therefore is not attached to a brigade but to the Divisonal HQ. At present, 1 R WELSH is still in Cyprus, but is due to move back to the UK later in the summer to be replaced by 2 LANCS. British Forces Cyprus is a seperate command under the Field Army, which does not fall under a divisional command structure. In essence it fulfils the same function as British Forces Germany, which is the administrative apparatus for all units in Germany not assigned to 1st Armd Div. 11 Brigade is a temporary formation that will be disbanded in 2010 and has been formed for the sole purpose of providing the HQ for the Herrick 10 rotation next year - as it is only a temporary formation, it is unlikely to be assigned to a divisional HQ. Hammersfan 06/05/08, 11.27 BST

Poland Land Force Structure

Hi, thanks for the info. Where did you get it from? Are you sure about it??? The structure you present is completely different from the structure I found on the homepage of the various Polish military units. Also this is a massive reduction in units - are you sure? See, if you are sure about your changes it is fine for me, but I ask because I want to be sure, that we upload a more correct version afterwards. greetings, --noclador (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Polish language wikipedia and there all the Brigades you removed from the graphic are still listed as active units of the Polish Land Forces... --noclador (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia is wrong. Please correct your grapahic or remove it. --Corran.pl (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I will do neither. Before I change any of my graphics I require some proof, that the Polish Land Force Structure has really changed. As of now the only information about such a change is your claim; this is not enough. I had a look at some of the official pages of the Polish Land Forces and I found many differences between what you say and what I found there. --noclador (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had no good sources then why are you posting informations that you can be sure of? You don't belive me - ok, then just remove this graphic, it creates wrong impression of facts. --Corran.pl (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK then, http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_Brygada_Kawalerii_Pancernej - 6th Armored Cavalry taht is presend on your graphic - you can translate it using http://www.poltran.com/, especialy thi

s phrase: Jednostka została zlikwidowana 30 czerwca 2007, a jej obiekty zostały przejęte przez 12 Brygadę Zmechanizowaną i Brygadę Wsparcia Dowodzenia Dowództwa Wielonarodowego Korpusu Północny-Wschód - Unit has been sold off 30 june 2007, but objects have been taken over brigade mechanized by 12 and command of multinational bodies brigade of support northern -east vindication < prove > . Clear enought? And I just have not time to give you sources on every mistake you have made, there is too many of them. --Corran.pl (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Same for 15th Armored Cavalry http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_Wielkopolska_Brygada_Kawalerii_Pancernej - 30 czerwca 2007 nastąpiło całkowite rozformowanie 15 Wielkopolskiej Brygady Kawalerii Pancernej im. gen. broni Władysława Andersa w Wędrzynie. - poltran:It has followed (has stepped) 30 june 2007 all-out 15 great poland's brigade cavalry iron-clad memorial < they (their) > _rozformowanie_. It defends gene. It defends in (to) Władysława Andersa Wędrzynie. rozformowanie means that unit was disbanded. In my opinion you shouldn't post infromations that you are not suer of. 16th Mechanized was disbanded few days ago so there will be no information on the internet. And the Military districts are no longer part of Land Forces.--Corran.pl (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone down your aggressive tone. Instead of insulting me - go through all! the Polish units with me and let us correct the English and Polish Wikipedia articles about the Polish Land Forces and correct the graphic too! In May last year I asked for help from Polish people to create a perfect graphic of the Polish Land Forces (like here, and here, or here) but only one Pole answered me (you did too - but I just found out now. You and BartekChom answered me here but only in September, when I did not look at the Polish Army pages anymore.) The single Pole who answered me was User:Halibutt, who without a doubt is the hardest-working and most diligent Wikipedian writing about Polish military matters. Together we looked at all the homepages of Polish units and based on the information there we created the graphic. So last year on June 25th the graphic was totally correct. As now it is not correct anymore, you and I will correct it, BUT we will need to go from Brigade to Brigade to make sure the graphic is 100% accurate again. As soon as we now what the new structure is, I will update the English wiki articles too and you should update the Polish articles. I have begun to with the 11 LDKPanc. --noclador (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it was very hard for you to collect proper data, but like I said before - you should hold your self from posting this map when your sources are so weak. --Corran.pl (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I need you to translate some things: http://www.10bkpanc.sow.mil.pl/struktury/index_pododdzialy.htm a) grupa zabezpieczenia medycznego = Medical ??? Group; b) Ośrodek szkolenia „LEOPARD” = ??? --noclador (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You should hold yourself from posting informations about structures lower then battalion, there are no official sources on detailed Polish Army structures because it was not realized to public. Translations: Medical Support Group and Training Center "Leopard". --Corran.pl (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic Work

Keep up the great work, very professional and second to none. -Signaleer (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, to be fair, he got it right, with the very unfortunate exception of you, a good faith contributor, getting caught up in all of it, which was an honest mistake. And maybe he was overzealous on his dialogue with and about you during the case. Please also accept my humble apologies for also believing you to have been part of that circus, but frankly, most people did. For it, I am sorry. That said, I would also like to say well done to Noclador for uncovering a significant and highly disruptive sock ring. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the kudos, Signaleer & AlasdairGreen27 - it's nice to see, that my work is appreciated. --noclador (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is, my friend. Well done again. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)