 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eurocopter. 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. |
Please stop putting the rumor into 4th gen article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.39.157.25 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting all those edits made by that dynamic-IP anon today. He's an old "friend" of mine who was indef blocked for gross incivility and vandalism. He apparently has some vandalism crusade to continually revert edits I make, and he's been doing it for a few months now. Thanks again. Parsecboy 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think that's feasible. He'll just go to another page I've edited and revert those edits. There's really no way to stop him, so the best option is to revert and ignore him. Parsecboy 19:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Go right ahead, but I can tell you now it won't do any good. He never uses the same IPs twice. It's best to just ignore him. Parsecboy 19:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Have a nice vacation. Parsecboy 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: please try to drop by the coordinator work area sometime soon if you haven't already. Thanks! :-) Kirill 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The August 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 09:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I think you're the first person other than myself to ever close one of the things! ;-)
(Looks like I was stepping on your toes at some points in the procedure; sorry about that.) Kirill 12:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to work on a template for Eurocpter Group helicopter pages at Template:Eurocopter. I've used the list of helicopters from the company page, but I know there are some that aren't listed there (like UH-72). I'f you want to help out, even if it's just with comments, I'd be grateful. - BillCJ 00:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Moscow Military District. Yeah, you're probably right. I'll do the transliteration now, and if you could find someone to check it, that'd be good. Cheers Buckshot06 20:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you enable your email-though-this-site or send me an email address?(you can do it thru the link on my talkpage.) I've got a present for you; KV's presentation of the Russian Armed Forces, circa 2005. Buckshot06 15:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was literally trying (again) when you sent me your reminder. I've tried at least five times to upload the zip file to gmail but every time it just sort of times out on me - evening, when I'm trying in France, is mid afternoon in the US, and 300 million people using gmail must make for quite a bit of server lag. I will try again some morning this week, but you might have to wait until the /// hold your horses, it's uploaded; am sending it now. Buckshot06 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're talking, I think, about the FL 4 Tsbp~~s located at Savostleyka/Savasleyka- the Sierra-class submarine symbol- alongside the 54th Fighter Aviation Regiment equipped with Su-27s (which seems now to have been disbanded, as it wasn't listed in AFM this year). You really have to check the symbols carefully. If you look up the Sierra class sub symbol, you'll see that it's not just submarine units themselves, but VMF(Russian Navy) training centres. You'll see the same symbol in the Black Sea diagram near Novorossiyk, just marked as a VMF yu - that's what it looks like. But there are no subs there - only one, none-working one, at Sevastopol. It's a training centre. (If you really want to know what that particular centre is, isn't probably some Navy test centre - your best bet is to look up the brinkster site, but it's also in Russian.) Releasing the data? They didn't 'release' it in one block. The two authors at Kommersant-Vlast carefully went through all the published Russian newspapers etc - like all the military enthusiasts do in the West - and collected everything together, over the space of years, probably with lots of help from other interested people. Now they are, I hear, in a bit of danger for doing so, because the Russian authorities and the FSB now have a nasty habit of regarding any piece of work that collects a whole lot of unclassified titbits together as classified, and putting people in jail because of it! Cheers Buckshot06 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Be careful. 54th, in the Moscow Military District (not the oblast or the city)? If it is, it's that probably-test-centre. Buckshot06 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I checked again and it is the 60th..., based in Kaluga... --Eurocopter tigre 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Um, no. You're getting the symbols mixed up between Kaluga and Savasleyka, and I can understand why; the map's not very user-friendly and in a totally different alphabet and language. Check the symbols page at the end and you'll see, 14th down on the second column, that 'four-rockets-piled on each other' that is on the map at Kaluga. The explanation is '~~apcehan', which, if you find a Russian-English dictionary, is arsenal. It's the 60 APC GRAY, or 60th Arsenal of the GRAU. Look closely and you'll see the line connecting to the submarine symbol goes down to the bottom right, linking to the 4 xxx xx and 54 rb han (Gv IAP). Hope that helps; encourage you to find a Russian dictionary to interpret the symbols page at the end. Cheers Buckshot06 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that. Thanks for your patient! I finnaly found the connections. Cheers Colin, --Eurocopter tigre 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Eurocopter. I wonder if you might look into something for me, wearing your coordinator's hat. user:Miyokan, formerly user:Ilya1166, has been deleting a number of my sourced inserts, usually unfortunately me having to be critical of the Russian Armed Forces, on the basis that they are 'out of date' or 'no other armed forces have sections like this'. I may be biased, but he appears to want to play up every positive aspect of the Russian military while deleting sections that disagree with what he thinks. Best example is at Talk:Russian Ground Forces, but there's also a good example where he's deleted 2006 data on flying hours for the Russian Air Force (see my most recent reinsertion there), and Russian Navy. I'm getting a bit frustrated. Could you take a look at this? Cheers Buckshot06 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, where do you go to see a list of template UBX's? Like all the ones on your user page.
Thanks,
LordSkane 15:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Be quite happy to oversee you doing so and make suggestions. You've got quite a bit of good starting material in the notes WB Wilson and I left in your talk pages etc earlier. Feel free to ask me to help out when you wish, but I've got no special info sources. I would start by adding specifically referenced and footnoted material from the earlier stuff that was left on your talkpage and the links. Cheers Buckshot06 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- If that's what you think, I'm not sure how serious you are about this. If you look at both the RGF and Military of the DRC articles, you will see that structural evolution is a large part of both- details about an Army's dispositions tell you about the military system adopted, and what an Army is configured for. (Why have you exhaustively outlined the Army's current structure with all those articles if it's previous structure wasn't important?) I would advise you to quote and incorporate the material that Mr Wilson has sent you. Right now the post WW2 section has a brief description of what happened to the army's political orientation immediately after WW2, and then skips straight to how the army was made up in the 80s. Nothing about the role the Army was expected to play in any war, equipment upgrades during that period, changes from the 50s onward etc. There needs to be a bit more description of what happened to the army in the 1990s, not merely that it was greatly reduced. Which units? Why? What threats were expected? Why? Also in the Beginnings and WW1 section there is a thumbnail of the wars Romanian was involved in, but nothing of what the army was like - conscript? regular? large? small? Good quality? Poorly motivated militiamen? As for new Western info, as far as I can tell you mean about right now, because you're talking about Jane's. Jane's takes lots of newspaper articles and sales contract announcements etc from local media- which you've got better access to being in the country. In terms of new info, take a look for a start at the Cold War International History Project, like I advised you before. Lots of info there. Buckshot06 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Colin, I should remind you that you can't compare the RGF or DRC with the Romanian People's Army. First of all, it received only bad quality equipment and it was based on the Soviet model. Second, in case of a major war in Europe, RoLF had a low importance in the Warsaw Pact. In conclusion, why concentrating on the Cold War section, if the RoLF didn't realise anything important in that period. RoLF history is much more interesting in 19th century, WWI and WWII... --Eurocopter tigre 13:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Structural evolution is important for any army at any time, not just the ones I mentioned. It's the structures that deliver the men to the battlefields to destroy the enemy. It had a low importance? Say that, and explain why, with refs. If the RoLF history is much more interesting in other periods, expand those, but, in fairness, you should cover everything, and it'll make it easier to get it promoted. I think we should stop disagreeing about minor differences in approach and you should start adding sourced information - and I'll review it whenever you like. Buckshot06 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you and see what I can do. Unfortunately it will be quite difficult for me to do this, as my time is limited. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 17:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry; FA or A-class type evolution is usually a slow process. Most important thing is to have fun doing it! Cheers Buckshot06 18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for warning Winky Bill about vandalizing my userpage. I've allowed him to circumvent the indef blocking of Jetwave Dave, but his vandalism of my userpage, and attempt to impersonate me, made my decision to report him. Anyways, I just wanted to thank you for your continued assistance in this matter. Parsecboy 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's not too much trouble, could you please put the archive tags before the section heading when you close the reviews? Otherwise, we get dangling section headers that don't appear to be archived. Thanks! Kirill 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, sorry for that! --Eurocopter tigre 08:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The September 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 09:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The redirect hasn't been edited since it was made, so you should be able to move the article back without the need for admin tools. Please let me know if you run into any problems doing it. Kirill 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We can in some cases move the pages back ourselves. Would you please mind putting a note on user:Miyokan's talk page, saying that this was a revert because the original move was not properly done (none of the page except the title was changed), and it was not discussed? It will have more weight coming from you than me. Thanks Buckshot06 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The article should be changed back to "Soviet Army". From 1946, the Red Army was officially renamed the Soviet Army, and was known as such until its dissolution. Just because some people in the west kept referring to it as the "Red Army" doesn't mean we should keep it as such. By your logic does that mean that the Soviet Union article should be changed to "Russia", as many people and leaders in the west referred and still do refer to the Soviet Union as "Russia" and its people as "Russians"?--Miyokan 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Army of the Soviet Union was designated at its formation as the Red Army, and even after 1946 most people reffered to it as the Red Army (i'm pretty sure that the western people are not the only ones). Also, the Red Army didn't suffer any structural/organizatory changes when it was renamed. Anyway, if you insist on this matter, we would have to start a survey and see other people opinions. --Eurocopter tigre 13:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't make any difference if there were no structual/organizatory changes it was officially renamed the Soviet Army. It might have been designated at its formation as the Red Army, but later it was renamed the Soviet Army. Also, people in the Soviet Union just called it the "Army", not the "Red Army", and it doesn't matter what people referred to it as as it was officially renamed the Soviet Army. We use official names in an encyclopedia, not nickname that people in the street refer to it as.--Miyokan 01:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me know if you need any help cleaning up the Winky mess - looks like you got it all, but ping me if you see more hitting & I'll jump in. Thanks. Maralia 18:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be nice and assume good faith, but I want an explanation from him again. If he (or someone new) starts again, please tell me and I'll take of it immediately. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Eurocopter. I don't know why they won't just block this guy indefinitely; it's clear he's a sockpuppet of an already banned user. Parsecboy 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome, i've already announced Ricky regarding this matter. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 20:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi EuroC, I know you've found people to translated Russian before, so could you look for someone to do ru:1-й особый гвардейский стрелковый корпус? We have no Russian rifle corps articles on en-Wiki, and it's be a good addition. Also, a english note, you've said at times 'I would like to announce you' or 'I've already announced X on the matter'. It would be better english if you said 'I would like to formally advise you / I've already advised X of the matter'. Just thought you might like to know. Cheers Buckshot06 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. Regarding user:Miyokan, I wanted to announce him, not to advise him. Anyway, thanks for attentioning me! --Eurocopter tigre 17:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, it would be better to say something like: '...on behalf of the coordinators, I would like to formally announce to you...' Er, and that's 'thanks for bringing that to my attention'. Just tell me if I'm getting a bit too much on this. RegardsBuckshot06 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's ok, it's good when somebody is attentioning me on such matters, as i'm not a native speaker of english - it would be really bad if a coordinator is speaking english with difficulties. Be sure i'm going to return this service whenever you are wrong with something i'm in position to attention/advise you. Do you have any other problems in which you need my help?? Best, --Eurocopter tigre 18:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would like your help on not immediately reverting bits of Russian I insert on half-translated when I'm going to translate them later. Hardly anyone probably visits those pages. Please, give me 48 hours to translate the remaining material when I do so, before you revert me. Cheers Buckshot06 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice job; I did a little cleanup. You can check Monumentul Aviatorilor for any improvements. Biruitorul 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? I think it's a fine idea and would be glad to join. Biruitorul 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
This was not cool. Please AGF and always remain CIV. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 20:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, no need for strong reactions at this point. I have absolute faith in the community's ability to come to a reasonable conclusion. :-) Kirill 20:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't pay attention at who placed the AfD tag there so I thought it was vandalism. Pardon me, best regards. --Eurocopter tigre 20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- No prob :-) Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 21:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's all good now. :-) Kirill 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
What was your reason for this unnecessary removal of a relevant comment? Melsaran (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Citing: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. --Eurocopter tigre 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please tell me how removing that (relevant) comment helped to improve the project. Melsaran (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Generally, respecting the rules is improving the project. Anyway, i'll assume good faith, so please feel free to add the comment back, i'm not going to revert it anymore. --Eurocopter tigre 21:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look, the "please do not modify" notice is there so that people won't add new "delete" or "keep" !votes after the debate ends, because (as the text below that states) it is better to add subsequent comments to a new MFD debate or DRV. In this case, I merely questioned someone's rationale in the discussion (minutes after the MFD (speedily) closed), and leaving that comment around isn't really harmful. The rules don't always have to be followed strictly by their letter; sometimes it's better to ignore them. I don't want to edit-war, but I'd appreciate it if you could re-add the comment yourself. No hard feelings, eh :) Melsaran (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's your own interpretation, "please do not modify" means not to modify it at all, and that's it! As I said, i'm assuming good faith and will add the comment back. --Eurocopter tigre 21:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Eurocopter tigre - Image:Romania.png 
Done :-) --noclador 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Could you have a glance at Talk:Eremia Grigorescu, I have a couple of questions regarding some details in that article. Cheers! --Stormie 02:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Proposing it on the main talk page would probably be a good idea. Provided that you can find some interested editors, I don't see it as being at all controversial, but maybe someone will notice something I'm missing. Kirill 14:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what does WPMILHIST stand for and in what way would you like me to help? and where is the link to the project? --Thus Spake Anittas 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I guess it stands for Wikipedia-Military-History. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I keep getting trapped in all sort of lateral projects, and I may not be able to give 100% there. That said, I would love to be part of the task force, but I'm not sure I would be very active there (i.e.: as active as I presume is required). If you think that this would not be an impediment, I'll gladly sign up. Let me know if and where.
Sorry for the belated reply on this: I did some fine-tuning on Eremia Grigorescu and added a bit more from the source you cited. At the moment, I'm working on several other articles, but I may be back with more.
Best, Dahn 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, then: you have my pledge. Concerning Grigorescu: the infobox seems to have been pasted from another article and modified from it; some info from the former seeped into the latter (for example, it said that Grigorescu fought at Stalingrad). I corrected the entry to correspond with the article, but I'm not sure all the info there is accurate - more subtle errors caused by the pasting may still be present, so would you please double-check it and my edits when you get a chance? Thanks. Dahn 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I added in some suggestions. These are just ideas, and maybe some will never be articles. Also, they're not all battles per se. If you want to know more about what I had in mind, you can ask. The only one that definitely requires some explanation is Romanian anti-invasion preparations before World War I: the idea is based on British anti-invasion preparations of World War II. Jilava Prison was initially part of the walls of Bucharest built just before such walls became obsolete due to the invention of long-range artillery, so it could be worth an article. I've also long been fascinated by the miles of passages beneath Bucharest (some of which date back hundreds of years), which also have some relation to defence (but Ceauşescu forgot to use them). If we can find a title, that too would be a great article. Biruitorul 22:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if this isn't the right place; I've just signed up for the Military History project. If this isn't it, what would be the correct place to post requests for comment not on an article at the full peer review level, but where I'm braindumping and have huge articles that need to split up, while I simultaneously want to add material to the article (or subarticles).
Perhaps in best shape is National technical means of verification. This is closely linked to MASINT, whose techniques are very relevant to arms control verification. Biographical articles on George Kistiakowsky and Dino Brugioni also relate here. MASINT is in better shape than SIGINT, although there are parts of MASINT (the subject, not necessarily specific articles) that need expansion, others (e.g., non-cooperative target recognition) that need tightening, and I suspect more graphics are necessary -- I've had time to draw two so far.
The biggest, and yet still incomplete, is SIGINT. While there are COMINT and ELINT articles, the latter are stub-ish, and there are aspects of SIGINT that doesn't neatly split into being COMINT or IMINT. Indeed, a modern surveillance aircraft will produce COMINT, IMINT, and MASINT, often from the same antenna and receiver -- it's the postprocessing that's different.
For COMINT specifically, there might be interest from the Cryptography Project, although COMINT decidedly covers more than cryptanalysis.
Suggestions welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[1] Please move that to the Wikipedia name space where the projects go, I dont think they should be in the article mainspace. Thanks! Phgao 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I'll move it in a minute! --Eurocopter tigre 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
WT:MHCOORD#Instructions. ;-) Kirill 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- The assessment stuff will be filled in by a bot; no need to do anything about it from our end.
- As far as the image is concerned, if you'd prefer an alternate image, just let me know and I'll change it. I'd prefer it if a somewhat stable decision on which one to use is made first, though, as changing such a widely-used template too frequently isn't exactly great for the servers. ;-) Kirill 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, done. Kirill 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
See here. Mikka has a good point, I think; we've generally avoided tagging entire countries and top-level history articles. I'd suggest that it's probably a good strategy to follow, at least for the time being; we don't really want to grab every historical article at this point. ;-) Kirill 04:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Buna, sunt curios numai: din ce regiune vii? --Thus Spake Anittas 17:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
A belated thank you for the welcome and the two nominations (with all the energetic campaigning there!). I'll do something about at least some redlinks, but I'm focusing on other things now. Best, Dahn 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi ET, would you mind working your magic again and seeing if you can find someone to translate ru:150-я стрелковая дивизия. That'd be really great if you could. Cheers Buckshot06 01:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
