User talk:Askari Mark/Archive 3

Hans-Joachim Marseille talk page
Amen to the last part. Are we then allowed to use both? Dapi89 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my response there. Cheers! Askari Mark (Talk) 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

askari mark: i have seen you'r comments on armenian air force.. if you want to know the true just look whit you'r own eye's whit google earth and you will see that armenia don't hafe su 27..there are about 18 mig 29 in the second airport of yerevan...and in gyumri are  15 sukhoi-25. 4 L-39 and 1 Mig 25  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.227.40 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Iran-Iraq war
Thanks, I appreciate that. In my personal experiences, RfCs just create warring factions, drawing in a wider audience to recruit editors to one cause or another. It's usually common sense and credible OR versus facts and figures. Only one side can possibly be right, and it sometimes seems both are. So, I let the other sysops take a look at it. Jus tin ContribsUser page 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Renominate Sino-American war
Do you think it would be possible to renominate the awful Sino-American War article for deletion? --Jscheiner (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not do that just yet. I've placed some tags on it to see if I can awaken its sleeping advocates and have also recommended it be merged into Sino-American relations where a reader would find better context and whose editors might make better use of the material. If they decline, then a new AfD would be appropriate. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Central Asian air forces
I thought I was the only one working on this. I've been adding a lot of material to Military of Kyrgyzstan and Military of Kazakhstan from Russian sources - if you find anything more on present-day units, please let me know! Best of luck working through this... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your source for the 426th Fighter Aviation Squadron (IAE) in the Armenian Air Force article? The Kommersant source only lists the aviation base and the ATC centre. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

German production question
You mention here a book on ops research. If the title comes to you, will you message me? I'd be interested in reading it myself. Thanx. Trekphiler (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. That's more than I ever expected. You'll keep me busy for weeks! =] Thanx a bunch. Trekphiler (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...
Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)




 * }
 * }
 * }

Pitot-static system
Thanks for the compliment. It just went through a GA review, and the last thing that is still questionable on the to do list is the intro paragraph. Could you take a minute and see if there is anything you can do to fix it up? Thanks! Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the article passed GA review. Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 13:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

'Strategic Offensive Operations'
This is now being discussed on the main MILHIST talk page if you wish to contribute. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian (and Soviet) Military Directories
You mentioned on the main talk page (where you encapsulated many of my frustrations with working with Mrg, by the way) that you'd worked alongside the Scotts. Must have been very interesting. I wonder if you'd be able to point me ways towards getting hold of more editions of their invaluable Russian Military Directory - I've only got 2002 & 2004 (via Craig Crofoot in softcopy) and more issues, wherever I could find them, would be nice. Would really appreciate any pointers you might have. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I've not seen them myself, and I'm not sure there are any other volumes than those two. Last I heard, Harriet was working on family genealogy projects, and I thought Bill had passed on some time ago. I'm wondering if these might not be reprints of their 1979 work The Armed Forces of the USSR; Westview Press doesn't list them, so any independent republishing would likely have required a title change. I don't follow Sovietology like I used to. After the fall of the USSR, general interest in its military history has likewise fallen off. Even well-respected and popular writers like Glantz have seen falling remuneration from their work; in fact, I've heard that he's starting up his own website for self-publishing and sales purposes. Specialist publications have become pricier as a consequence of ever smaller print runs. Your best bet would be to work with a good research librarian. I tried running down a publisher on the Net and couldn't find a reference to one. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian-Slovak poll
You might like to know that there's a poll going on about modifications to the Hungarian-Slovak naming convention proposed earlier. Voting is open until 11 May 20:06. Markussep Talk 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Sorry to bother you but does an editor place the first country that retired an aircraft for example MiG-23 or the last F-104? EZ1234 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your question isn't actually clear. Could you please rephrase it? Askari Mark (Talk) 18:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Retired section in the infoboxs of aircraft, is the first user to retire the aircraft placed there or the last user? For example MiG-23 Retired: 1994 (Russia) compared to F-104 Retired: 2004 (Italy). Sorry aobut the last question. Cheers EZ1234 (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Does that make sense or is it one of those unimportant questions? EZ1234 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but I didn't notice that I had two new messages on the 26th. For the purposes of the infobox, the final user's retirement of the aircraft should be used, and I would note the year, with the final user in parentheses, instead of vice versa. For a handy reference, check the Infobox Aircraft template description page. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon users
Do you think it's possible to add a source to that massive list down the bottom of that page? From it's appearance, it might be a straight cut and paste from Jane's All the World's Aircraft. Best regards & keep up the good work. Buckshot06(prof) 13:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * JAWA actually uses a table, but I can cite that as the source. The place where detailed work will be needed is in the List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators, although even there I'm thinking of just having a reference section, with only perhaps specific notes cited. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but can we specify a year/issue? Better if we could do that. Also, at the Narodnoe Opolchenyie page (excuse my spelling plse), there's now an WP:RM going. Noticed your perceptive comments at the top, and maybe you might be able to contribute with a slightly different, but not indoctrinated, viewpoint. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 08:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added my comments to the Narodnoe Opolcheniye debates. As for the JAWA date, I'll have to wait until I return from vacation, but I'll try to remember to add it then.

Cheers, Mark

Thanks
Thanks for this fix; I was beating my head against the wall trying to find the link. I never thought to look inside the includeonly tags. Even after two years, I still learn something new about Wikipedia every day.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. You were only off by one word.  But I wouldn't have even looked there if you hadn't made the attempt.  So you're still a genius in my book. ;-P.  Cheers, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Them blinkety-blank citations"
Hi Mark, thanks for the note. As to the style of the F-16 citations, I came across this article only recently and noted that there was the unsual inconsistency in citing sources. Much of that comes from the mix of bibliographic referencing formats that are in use. I tend to select one style and stick with it and have found that the Modern Language Association Syle Guide is easy to learn and use, has flexibility in its use and (typically) is not the style guide used for the Wiki citation templates which use the American Psychological Association style guide which is reputedly now the most commonly used format for the social scineces. This has occurred over the years as universities which first used the guide for the sciences doggedly insisted that all freshmen adopt this style because it was "easier." I find the dropping of the source of publishing and the attachment of the date to the author rather than the publication still off-putting, but nonetheless, it is out there. The guide I use is the MLA "tried-and-true": '''Author. Title. Place of Publishing: Publisher, Date.''' convention. The one oddity in the F-16 citations is one editor's use of the "Anon" or anonymous entry for the author which to me is redundant as if no author is given, then it is assumed that the author is not identified. More if you want it... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

Vote on unit symbols for liter
We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Could u please review HA-300
Helwan HA-300 is an article that has improved a lot but needs someone experienced like yourself to suggest things to do before getting a good article assesment. Could u please review this article. Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
FYI: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. (sdsds - talk) 11:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Date formats after autoformatting
With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:


 * 1) Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
 * 2) For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
 * 3) Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
 * 4) Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U needing your endorsement
Hi Askari Mark. After Davegnz's latest outburst, I have decided to file an RfC/U to gain input from the wider community. Since I have specifically named you as someone who has unsuccessfully tried in the past to encourage him to work constructively with others, my version of events requires any corrections you feel are necessary, and then your endorsement. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - but as someone named as having been involved, your signature actually goes in the section above, as "certifying the basis for this dispute" --Rlandmann (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No probs. It's actually the first one I've ever opened. I was considering a long block after he savaged User:Twas Now today, but he already feels victimised enough - I felt it was time to get broader input than the same voices he's used to hearing. Incidentally, since you're named, you're also free to make any edits or clarifications to the main body of the RfC. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear you, which is why I chose to present the behaviour as different manifestations of a general pattern of disruption and aggression. Because these formal proceedings ask for specific diffs (and rightly so!), it's almost impossible to ever capture the overall "vibe" for anyone who wasn't personally involved. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Fighter aircraft 0.7
Thanks very much indeed :) There's only so much we can do in the limited time available and I'm glad this is in the hands of a very competent editor. Much appreciated, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks re thanks
Wow. It's amazing having that [block] after the [contribs] in the history readout. I'm amazed people don't hit it more often. Thanks again. Buckshot06(prof) 19:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)
Do you have any time free please to give this article a quick once over? English is not the first language of the primary contributor so the prose needs tweaking in places. Other improvements are welcome as the objective is to take it to A-Class. It woulsd be much appreciated if you could help, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your changes and comments. I'm afraid I've lost any sense of the perspective on this one as I've got myself too involved. (Funnily enough I don't have this problem with stuff I write myself.) I've made some minor tweaks myself and will look at it again tomorrow. Much appreciated. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 03:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I am the editor Roger Devis was referring to. Thanks for the copy-edit. I noticed that you capitalized 1st letter of every word in section names. The thing is, in Peer Review I got the feedback to make them lower case except first word. You could see history of this article if you wish. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * I appreciate that constructive feedback. Gives me an idea of what needs to be fixed. Since English is not my 1st language, I will try my best. As to the German words for Unit size or designations are concerned, (ex. Geschwader, Staffel etc.) User:Harryurz tends to agree with you & made that change before you did your changes. However Peer Review brought the comments that it makes the article jargon heavy. Do you think, it would be appropriate to have italic German word and English equivalent in bracket, at first use and just German word later on ? Where can I look for clear direction on this issue ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Again!
 * In reference to one of of your comments on Prose and language, you mentioned that certain formulations are used repeatedly. I'd appreciate if you could take example from the article to highlight the issue. Similarly for the prose please. I have incorporated most of other comments. English is not my first language.
 * As to your point on Operating bases, I am forced to put it on my to do list like the time in Battle of France. It's likely to become bigger discussion as there isn't any Luftwaffe wing out there at this time that carries the information. Thanks for your help. Perseus71 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Askari Mark,
 * Could you please let me know when you are done with the fighter aircraft ? I am afraid I need a hand in getting a GA class Review for this article. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Time for a bit of the mother tongue
Wilco, old bean. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk

Dates and things
Well said in your recent post on the date linking issue, I definitely get the impression there that a handful of editors are trying to change things (and are actually implementing the changes with bots) before the matter has been properly agreed. I can see them rolling their eyes up to the heavens at the slightest justified and sensible objection to 'their policy'. I only want to use 'avyears', and in the infobox (not in the 'see also' section which according to the same editors 'is a much better way of doing it', rubbish! I agree with some of the date de-linking but it is very apparent that people are confused. Guess it will rumble on for ever until someone very wise gets a grip of the situation. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   02:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nimbus, it appears that the only confusion is within you and a few others. It's a quite simple matter, and has widespread support. If you can provide feedback that improves the technicalities of autoformatting removal (and that of trivial date fragments), they will be gladly received. Please don't put about that there's public confusion when there clearly isn't. Tony   (talk)  02:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above and before I agree with date link removal except 'years in' particularly in the aviation project where it has a very useful function, in my own confused opinion of course. As has been mentioned we do have better things to do.Nimbus (Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When one looks at the Contents portal, one of the items listed is “Timelines”. That tells me these types of pages have a legitimate place in Wikipedia (regardless of what condition they may presently be in).  It further tells me that MOSNUM has no authority to eliminate historical date linking, which it is effectively doing by arbitrarily delinking “years in” coding, since it lies outside the stylistic purview of MOSNUM.  WikiProject Time would seem to me to be the most appropriate place to work out what the future of “years in” should be.  (I could be wrong, though, as I’ve never worked in this area, but it should be a good place to start.)  Askari Mark (Talk) 03:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger. Been busy editing, hope it all gets sorted out. Nimbus <font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)   05:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Date linking RFC (year in ... links. I think you should be aware that when Tennis Expert talks about 'local consensus overriding the MoS', he has a private agenda. He has been determinedly refusing to allow tennis-related articles to be brought into line with the Manual of Style, claiming that there is a local consensus to keep things the way they are (grossly overlinked) and that there is no agreement to change. But this consensus exists only in his own mind. No other tennis editor has supported his stand and many have actively opposed it, but he just reverts them all. See the edit history of Roscoe Tanner, for example, where he has reverted the attempts of six different editors. I could provide a lot more examples. When he says 'local consensus', what he really means is 'under his control'. In his mind, there will only be a consensus to change the tennis articles when he agrees that there's a consensus, and not before. (And BTW, you won't find any messages from editors complaining about his actions on his talk page because he routinely reverts any criticism.) This guy is not good company to be in. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fighter aircraft
What ho, old chap!

I've converted the article to US spellings and given it the lightest of light copyedits. You've done an outstanding job in the time on what is essentially a very different subject. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for your kind message in my talk page. Happy to help in inproving this article (or "series of articles"?); just let me know how I can be useful without making a mess with other editors work. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment sounds good to me, sadly all my books are still packed in boxes, archived at a warehouse! Will see what can I contibute, maybe review + suggestions? (sigh!). Cheers, DPdH (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee, now tell me your hobby is Aircraft Modelling! But family is wonderful, and after kids move out you'll have too much empty space... In my case, moving (city) has caused the "packaging" more than having a kid. Please give a look to my latest comment in "Talk: Fighter aircraft" and if it makes sense will go for it. Cheets, DPdH (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PHEW! What a discussion about "TDs", consensus seem to be difficult to achieve. Anyway, thanks for your hard work and proposals; sorry to know about the funeral; and safe trip and enjoy your Thanksgivings. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hal Tejas
Hi, u undid my changes to the fighter aircraft article but if you read the indian airforce site, bharat rakshak or even the wikiepdia article on HAL Tejas u would realise that the first squadron is already deployed. So I have again added HAL Tejas as a 4.5 generation jet. I see that u have done a lot of work on military article and i have hardly any knowledge about milittary so if u find that i am wrong u can revert my good faith edit. ThanksEnthusiast10 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The nature and function of glossaries on Wikipedia - they are descriptive menus!
See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The Transhumanist 22:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

image man
Mark—We've lost Elcobbola, which is dreadful. Sandy thinks that Masem may have the expertise. Tony  (talk)  06:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

HAL Tejas
OK i found a lot of sources that say HAL Tejas is a 4.5 Gen. fighter. Also two squadrons are already operating so whats the harm in adding HAL Tejas to the Fighter Aircraft article now. A lot of IP addresses keep adding and removing Hal Tejas so I suggest an official decision should be made. Either we include the jet no we include it later. I say if the squadrons are ready then it should be included, There are obviously not many jets which have been constructed bu lets just compare HAL Tejas to Su-32. There are just 5-10 of these planes but still the sukhoi is included so i really dont see the harm in including the Hal too.

Some questions- whats the difference between the Mig-29 4th gen and Mig-29M 4.5 Gen and why is Mig-35 not included as a 4.5 Gen jet in the Fighter aircraft article. Thanks loads I see u r on a wikibreak so waiting for ur replyEnthusiast10 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

B-2 Stealth Bomber "procurement cost" controversy
You might want to weigh in with your considered professional opinion on the true "procurement costs" of the B-2 Spirit "Stealth Bomber." Some editors are confusing a US$737 million per plane "fly away" "air vehicle costs" with procurement costs which include spare parts, tech support, etc. When all is said and done, the procurement cost is actually $929 million per plane, with a total program cost of US$2.1 Billion per plane. I've linked your piece here on the B-2 articles talk page for educational purposes.Critical Chris (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)