buckshot06/Archive 13

I think the non-combat regiments are military-air, but this is only my theory at this stage.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the "military-air regiment" (военно-воздушный полк) is reserved for non-Russian aviation units.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was so surprised when it didn't redlink, but forgot to go back and see if there was a correct redirect, and there isn't.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But of course I can—it is located in Primorsky Krai, where I lived most of my life :) Varfolomeyevka you need is located in Yakovlevsky District of Primorsky Krai, at 44°18′N 133°26′E / 44.300°N 133.433°E / 44.300; 133.433. Yes, there is an airbase there; a small one, if I remember correctly (never been in that area myself except in transit, however). There is also the railway station of Varfolomeyevka in the vicinity, which is incorporated as a separate inhabited locality, but I doubt you need to go into such fine details. Anyway, what exactly would you like me to find about this place?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this, no, I can't—this list is supposed to include only the top level divisions, cities/towns, and urban-type settlements, not rural localities (mainly because there are over 600 of them in Primorsky Krai, and listing them all would overload the list). What I can do, however, is to create a set index article at Varfolomeyevka. Another viable option is, of course, creating the article on Yakovlevsky District and list all of its inhabited localities there (same way it is done in, for example, the Giaginsky District article), but that's a lot more work. Please let me know if a set index will be sufficient for you. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it may seem as quiet sleepy backwaters to you, but since it's my original home, I, naturally, tend to pay those articles more attention than I probably should :) (in fact, administrative divisions of Primorsky Krai is only second to Agygea in terms of the percentage of blue links).
Anyhoo, to answer your question about my priorities, apart from promising this user to bring administrative divisions of Tatarstan to featured status (which is not something I can do without his help, because he has Tatar-language sources needed to paint most of the red links blue), my schedule is pretty flexible. I'd like to finish my database of Russian populated places before I do any more major work on the administrative divisions articles, but after that I am wide-open to suggestions as to what to work on next. The list of Adygea's divisions was just a pilot project (Adygea is alphabetically the first in the list and is pretty small, so different organization/formatting ideas could have been tried without having to change hundreds of articles every time there is a minor improvement to the process).
As for Varfolomeyevka, I'll put together a set index today as promised. Also, while I don't have any problems with you citing me, the ref you added to the 11th Air Army is not really appropriate since another Wikipedia user cannot serve as a reference for an article. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The ref tag wasn't closed properly, so everything was actually being interpreted as part of the footnote. Kirill ^(prof) 02:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Was wondering if you can have a look at the World War II edit history and see if User:Oberiko's block was warranted. If you concur, please add to my request for unblock to User talk:Athaenara--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm at all happy with this situation, but I think that it was fair to block both editors as the edit war wasn't necessary. If Oberiko had held off for a few hours and/or used the stress response procedures other editors would have reverted the edits and avoided a 3RR situation. As it's only a 24 hour block and has been applied fairly I think that its ultimately OK, albeit highly unfortunate. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This book

• A Forgotten Offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command's Anti-Shipping Campaign 1940-1945 (Cass Series--Studies in Air Power, 1)[1]

can be searched so may be useful for your 18th Group RAF, and other--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is outside your areas of speciality, but would you mind having a look at the American mutilation of Japanese war dead article? The editor who's mainly been working on it is on a self-declared mission to push this material which few specialist historians consider worthy of covering in any detail (see Wiki talk:Neutral point of view#Undue Weight Criteria), and has some decidedly fringe views on WW2 in the Pacific (eg, that large numbers of Japanese troops wanted to surrender to the Allies but were killed after being taken prisoner). There seem to be only two journal articles on this topic (I've able to find one of them for free on the internet, and it has nothing to say about how common this behaviour was), and the specialist books on the experiances of Allied troops in the Pacific (including some very gloomy and revisionist books on the war) generally only devote a few pages to it - presumably on the grounds that it wasn't all that important. The editor is dismissing these books as being populist, which seems to suggest that he hasn't seen them! (I doubt that Dower's book on how Americans waged a racially driven war in the Pacific or Bergurand's book about the utter misery most soldiers went through exactly flew off the shelves at Barnes and Noble). Nick Dowling (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A cleaner way to request additional editors opinion would be by not trying to bias them beforehand, Nick. Accusing me of having fringe views without giving me the chance to defend myself is not nice, however I think my edit on undue weight speak for themselves. Also only providing your POV is not nice either. As for other wikipedians, you rely on support given from an editor who added nothing constructive and with a history of stalking me. See for example this example. I've noticed you've been going around trying to engage people wherever there would seem to be people inclined to support your POV. May I please ask you that in the future you notify on the talk page of the mutilation article whenever you try to recruit support. Would save both of us the time to keep checking the others contributions.
for those interested, some info on the topic that I would ask you to please try to read before starting to comment.
• Simon Harrison "Skull Trophies of the Pacific War: transgressive objects of remembrance" Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (free download)
• James J. Weingartner "Trophies of War: U.S. Troops and the Mutilation of Japanese War Dead, 1941-1945" Pacific Historical Review (available from JSTOR)
• The May 22, 1944. Life Magazine picture of the week (Image)

By the way, Nicks request and my reply are prety much copy-paste from a section in the Wiki talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force--Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, I had JSTOR access before, so I downloaded it then. Regards. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I opened the window, bit there seems to be no attachments functionality in wikipedia mail? Did I select the wrong one--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ping done --Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(od) Personally, I'd like a summary of this material merged in with the Allied attrocities of WW2 article (the size of the summary currently there seems OK) and the article removed as a WP:UNDUE violation. But it looks like I'm in a distinct minority of experianced editors with this view, which I accept. Thanks for your comments. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Buckshot. I'm trying to get Eric Bols upto B-Class Standard, as thats the level I think the article is likely to achieve, and I've added quite a lot more into it since you last saw it. I was wondering if you could look oevr it and see if it rated B-Class? Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, actually someone has already done it, although an eye over it is always welcome from you, as it would be for the GA Nom for 11th Airborne Division. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes to my additions of Commands. I may have been confused about some things because I didn't have my laptop when I was looking up Roskill, so had to work from my handwriting. As it happens Roskill lists the RN and RAF commands together on the pages I used as reference for my additions to the List of fleets and major commands of the Royal Navy article, hence confusion. However, I believe you are also confused. The RN Commands were different organisational entities to both the Fleets, and the foreign stations, the later listed on a map (lifted from Roskill) here http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-3909-04RN.htm#4.2

Interestingly the above link was deleted from the List of fleets and major commands of the Royal Navy, and of course Fleets were entirely different things altogether of course. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you know there were not the Commands in RN?

Well? :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand why Wikipedia would semi-protect the NATO page. Vandalism does happen. But in this great wiki democracy, who gives you the right to say that my contributiont to the NATO page belongs on the SHAPE page? That sort of senior level micromanaging is more Encylopedia Brittanica than it is Wiki English. Protect from vandalism yes: overmanage contributions in a paternalistic way no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaman (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to create a List of Māori battles which will require enlargement of this template. Was wondering if you can do the honours --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I will get it on Monday, today and tomorrow I'm at home and have no access. 09:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Woody (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I have it possibly on my stick, but not for sure. The only other option is to print the pages and scan them afterwards to send them to you via email. I can do that this week if you give me an adress. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the first I've ever heard of it; but I don't keep very current with what de: is doing at the moment. Possibly someone that actually edits both wikis would have a better idea. Kirill ^(prof) 04:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article serves no purpose. However, as it's a likely search term, I'd suggest turning it into a redirect to Iraq War order of battle which looks like the most similar article rather than deleting it. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As the article is new and has been edited a lot in the last few days, I'd recomend discussing the change first. If there's any unique content in the US military in Iraq article (eg, the stuff on the Coast Guard) it could be moved to the OOB article now though - this would also clearly demonstrate why this is a duplicate of existing articles. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place I've responded to you on my talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That was just an act of vandalism what you did. Even IF your argument for Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery articles was valid, what was the rationale for the rest? In nay case, there is a criterion for overcategorisation, so you tell me where you think I went wrong

1. 1 Non-defining or trivial characteristic
2. 2 Opinion about a question or issue
3. 3 Subjective inclusion criterion
4. 4 Arbitrary inclusion criterion
5. 5 Trivial intersection
6. 6 Intersection by location
7. 7 Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference
8. 8 Narrow intersection
9. 9 Small with no potential for growth
10. 10 Mostly-overlapping categories

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Buckshot06. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ANI regarding repetitive stalking of edits. The discussion can be found under the topic Wiki: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking_by_User:Buckshot06. Yours, --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, I noticed that myself also. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, in order to properly create a network of sub-articles for the Russian Air Force we have to variants:

• 1. Moving the current List of Regiments of the RusAF to a List of units of the RusAF which would also include separate tables for squadrons and divisions.
• 2. Creating another two lists for squadrons and divisions/other major units.

We may consider Royal Air Force's sub-articles network as a model. (I've also done this for the RoAF one month ago) --Eurocopter (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, created List of Corps & Divisions of the Russian Air Force. Regarding the Backfire numbers, I don't have an exact source, but AFM states that 5 regiments are active - 4 bomber & 1 training (each regiment has a number of 22 aircraft). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
So the 110 number is just an estimate from AFM? Buckshot06(prof) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
List of Squadrons & Detachments of the Russian Air Force and Template:Russian Air Force also created. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I would prefer if you create a separate list for the ex-Soviet units (until 1992). We should create for the RusAF a sub-articles network based on the currently active units. Even the RusAF is the main successor of the Soviet Air Force, I think we should treat them like two different air forces. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. However, I think we'll have two quite short lists at this moment (only 7 divisions and 7 corps). Maybe we shouldn't split the article until we add some more units to it. Anyway, feel free to split it whenever do you think it's ready. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Buckshot, I replied to your email on that adress on yesterday. Did you want to send me something? --Eurocopter (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you placed a {{prod}} on American aerial bombardment of Afghanistan without complying with the advice in WP:PROD that you leave a notice on the talk page of the article creator?

"Although not required, it is considered courteous to notify the article's creator and other significant contributors that you have proposed an article for deletion."

Please remember that wikipedia is not a battleground. We are supposed to try to reach decisions through discussion. If the person who started an article is going to discuss your concern with you it is really going to help if tell them about it.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed; the task force labels are case-sensitive. Cheers! Kirill ^(prof) 01:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible, yes; I can take a look at it. I expect it will unacceptably increase the server load caused by the template for minimal gain, though; and I'm not exactly anxious to have the devs looking at it with too critical an eye, given how complex it is at the moment. Kirill ^(prof) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice,I'll use it. --EZ1234 (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Just to let you know, I've nominated Operation Varsity for an FAC, and any comments would be welcome at the nomination page. Skinny87 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for your kind comments. They are appreciated, but it's quite enjoyable to share some knowledge with everyone.

As far as your numerical suggestion, I think it's an excellent one :) You may also want to consider the same for the USAAF groups, as almost all USAF wings have a USAAF group predecessor....

Regards Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I just reread the talk :P, I thought that was MRG unblocked and returning fire! I'll rewrite that... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces

Your input will be appreciated.

Thanks 58.65.163.248 (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted my cookies and forgot to sign in.

I would say on the issue of Special Forces figting conventional battles (or actions more properly), well the jury is out. We have the Rangers debacle at Anzio, the Pakistani losses in Siachen, while the SAS in the NW Europe Campaign of 44-45 found itself overwhelmed fighting conventionally (one of the reasons it was sent back to Italy, or at least one unit was). So its an open issue, and since indeed special forces operatives themselves accuse superiors of using them in conventional way, for which they are not suited. Thus I think it should at least be mentioned in the article. Sparten (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok wildo.
)

Brigades I don't have a full list, and they keep moving them all the time, so it might not be accuarate always.

Corps and divisions, you can find at Pak Army page, but ORBAT is a bit worrisome and her is a bit more info.

I Corps: formed 1958; Abbotabad, now is in Mangla

6 Armoured Division (Kharian) 17 Infantry Division (Kharian) 37 Infantry Division (Kharian or Gujrat, can't be sure)

Note ID are mechanised.

Fought in 1965 and 71 wars, as well as sent replacements to Kashmir for LOC.

II Corps: Multan, formed, sometime after 1965 war

1 Armoured Division 14th Infantry Division

ID is mechanised.

IV Corps: Lahore, formed '65 10 Infantry Division (Lahore) 11 Infantry Division (Lahore)

11 ID is mechanised but seems to have less armour contigent then other mech formations.

Fought in both 65 and 71 war.

V Corps (Karachi) formed '75 16 Infantry Division (panno aquil) 18 Infantry Division (Panno aquil) V Corps Reserve

ID's are mechanised. Has a lot of indpt Brigades as well, since it has all of Sindh to cover.
V Corps reserve despite the name, is an armoured division. Some rumour that it has been reorganised and given a number designation, but have no official indication.

X Corps (Rawapindi)formed '75 12 Infantry Division (Muree). A double sized division, has 7 infantry brgades. All are uniquely containing Azad kashmir regiment battalions. 19 Infantry Division (Jehlum), 23 Infantry Division (Kashmir someplace, HQ moved) Force Command Northern Areas: Gilget. (Double sized 6 brigades, often functions indep of Corps HQ taking orders directly from GHQ)

This has been in action on the LOC since its inception.

XI Corps (Peshawar)formed '75 7 Infantry Division (peshawar) 9 Infantry Division (Kohat)

Presently engaged in fighting in FATA

XII Corps (Quett formed 80's sometime 33 Infantry Division (Quetta) 41 Infantry Division (Quetta)

XXX Corps (Gujarawala) 8 Infantry Division 15 Infantry Division

each division has 4 brigades and an armoured div is in the process of raising.

XXXI Corps (Bahawalpur) 35 Infantry Division 40 Infantry Division XXXI Corps reserve

ID's are mechanised divisions. The Corps reserve is an armoured division like the V Corps reserve.

Former formations.

Eastern Command Corps level formation in the former E Pak. Lost in '71. Had the following divisions

14 ID 9 ID 16 ID

All three were reraised after the war and exist today. 14ID pretty much did noy6 fight, since it was heavily Bengali, and they deserted (6 battalions deserted) when the operation began.

36 ID 39 ID were raised to command the Paramilitary troops and a few loyal battalions. Were later reinforced with a couple of other battalions each. Were not reraised.

6 ID Was the old Bahawalpur State forces, which joined the Pak Army on its formation. Disbanded after 48 war. Today, 35 Div formation sign is its formation sign, though there is no lineage.

I would love to add as much as I can to this endevour. Going to begin a page on 12 Div. Fought in all of Pakistanis wars, along with 7 Div.

Sparten (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake, sorry--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you were looking for? If not, and you'd like to modify that, go right ahead. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073,00.html

You might find this interesting, it is on the Russian military. It happens to mention the current location of one of the divisions of the 37th Air Army. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to incite someone to block me for incivility again? Who appointed you the "hall monitor"? I am an adult, and can think for myself. If I want to say something, I will say it regardless of Wikipedia policy or guidelines because freedom of speech is far more precious then all the Wikipedias in the World. In fact that is what Wikipedia is about, not petty bureaucracy. So, get off my case Buckshot06. I need Wikipedia far less then it needs me, so in case you are not clear about it, I don't care if I get blocked from it for eternity as long as I say what I think. I assure you that I can be doing other things then having "discussions" here, and if you don't want to read what I have to say, just take me off your watchlist and never look at my contributions again --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, have started this article but don't have much information. You may wish to review the article and edit/add to as required. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Buckshot. I recall the comments you made on the Russia FAC page some time ago. If you have such observations to make about the Ukraine article, please, don’t hesitate to share them at the above link. Best regards, Bogdan ^що? 12:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)