User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 10

Type and Branch for SRF
Have a look here http://russianforces.org/rus/missiles/ unless you have seen it already --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Staff and support structure for SRF were created later. I'm not sure this is in the article

31 декабря 1959 г. были сформированы: Главный штаб Ракетных войск, Центральный командный пункт с узлом связи и вычислительным центром, Главное управление ракетного вооружения, управление боевой подготовки, ряд других управлений и служб. В состав РВСН входили 12-е Главное управление МО, ве-давшее ядерными боеприпасами, инженерные формирования, подчиненные ранее заместителю министра обороны по специальному вооружению и реактивной технике, ракетные полки и управления 3 авиадивизий ВВС, арсеналы ракетного оружия, базы и склады специального вооружения. В состав РВСН также вошли 4-й Государственный центральный полигон МО (Капустин Яр); 5-й Научно-исследовательский испытательный полигон МО (Байконур); отдельная научно-испытательная станция в пос. Ключи на Камчатке; 4-й НИИ МО (Болшево Мос-ковской области). В 1963 г. на базе объекта "Ангара" был образован 53-й Научно-исследовательский испытательный полигон ракетного и космического вооружения МО (Плесецк).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the decree...I called Putin, but he said he was busy or something :Op

Sorry, usually the place to find these things is here http://www.rg.ru/ but this one doesn't seem to be there...and its not here http://www.jurbase.ru/index.htm either :O\

However, this decree will keep you busy for a bit I think ;o) (on my birthday again!)

Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 31 мая 2006 г. N 549 Об установлении профессиональных праздников и памятных дней в Вооруженных Силах Российской Федерации

Опубликовано 3 июня 2006 г.

В целях возрождения и развития отечественных воинских традиций, повышения престижа военной службы и в знак признания заслуг военных специалистов в решении задач обеспечения обороны и безопасности государства постановляю:

1. Установить в Вооруженных Силах Российской Федерации:

а) профессиональные праздники:

День специалиста юридической службы - 29 марта;

День сотрудников военных комиссариатов - 8 апреля;

День специалиста по радиоэлектронной борьбе - 15 апреля;

День специалиста по ядерному обеспечению - 4 сентября;

День танкиста - второе воскресенье сентября;

День военного связиста - 20 октября;

День военного разведчика - 5 ноября;

б) памятные дни:

День инженерных войск - 21 января;

День войск противовоздушной обороны - второе воскресенье апреля;

День Военно-Морского Флота - последнее воскресенье июля;

День Тыла Вооруженных Сил Российской Федерации -1 августа;

День Воздушно-десантных войск - 2 августа;

День Железнодорожных войск - 6 августа;

День Военно-воздушных сил - 12 августа;

День российской гвардии - 2 сентября;

День Сухопутных войск - 1 октября;

День Космических войск - 4 октября;

День подразделений специального назначения - 24 октября;

День войск радиационной, химической и биологической защиты - 13 ноября;

День ракетных войск и артиллерии - 19 ноября;

День Ракетных войск стратегического назначения - 17 декабря.

2. Признать утратившими силу:

Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 10 декабря 1995 г. N 1239 "Об установлении Дня Ракетных войск стратегического назначения и Дня Военно-космических сил" (Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации, 1995, N 50, ст. 4907);

Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 19 июля 1996 г. N 1040 "Об установлении Дня Железнодорожных войск Российской Федерации" (Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации, 1996, N30, ст. 3606);

Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 18 сентября 1996 г. N 1370 "Об установлении Дня инженерных войск" (Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации, 1996, N 39, ст. 4532);

пункт 1 Указа Президента Российской Федерации от 29 августа 1997 г. N 949 "Об установлении Дня Военно-воздушных сил" (Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации, 1997, N 35, ст. 4059);

Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 22 декабря 2000 г. N 2032 "Об установлении Дня российской гвардии" (Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации, 2000, N 52, ст. 5125);

Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 3 октября 2002 г. N 1115 "О внесении изменений в Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 10 декабря 1995 г. N 1239 "Об установлении Дня Ракетных войск стратегического назначения и Дня Военно-космических сил" (Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации, 2002, N 40, ст. 3902);

пункт 2 приложения N 1 к Указу Президента Российской Федерации от 3 августа 2005 г. N 918 "Об изменении и признании утратившими силу некоторых актов Президента Российской Федерации" (Собрание законодательства Российской Федерации, 2005, N 32, ст. 3274).

3. Признать не действующими на территории Российской Федерации:

Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР от 11 июля 1946 г. "Об установлении ежегодного праздника "Дня танкистов" (Ведомости Верховного Совета СССР, 1946, N 26);

Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР от 17 ноября 1964 г. N 3027-VI "О праздновании "Дня ракетных войск и артиллерии" (Ведомости Верховного Совета СССР, 1964, N 47, ст. 531);

Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР от 17 июня 1970 г. N 5273-VII "О внесении изменений в Указы Президиума Верховного Совета СССР "Об установлении ежегодного праздника "Дня танкистов" и "О праздновании "Дня ракетных войск и артиллерии" (Ведомости Верховного Совета СССР, 1970, N 25, ст. 217);

Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР от 20 февраля 1975 г. N 1098-IX "Об установлении ежегодного праздника "Дня войск противовоздушной обороны страны" (Ведомости Верховного Совета СССР, 1975, N 9, ст. 149);

абзацы второй, четвертый - шестой статьи 7 Указа Президиума Верховного Совета СССР от 1 октября 1980 г. N 3018-Х "О праздничных и памятных днях" (Ведомости Верховного Совета СССР, 1980, N 41, ст. 846);

абзац четвертый статьи 2, пункт 2 статьи 3 и пункт 1 статьи 4 Указа Президиума Верховного Совета СССР от 1 ноября 1988 г. N 9724-XI "О внесении изменений в законодательство СССР о праздничных и памятных днях" (Ведомости Верховного Совета СССР, 1988, N 45, ст. 701).

4. Настоящий Указ вступает в силу со дня его подписания.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's main page
Congratulations and commiserations! Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has already attracted a lot of vandals, but I think that 'my' Axis Naval Activity in Australian Waters emerged a bit better from its sojourn on the main page so it's probably worth it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just moved the last version of the List of Inactive MAJCOM Wings of the United States Air Force to your sandbox. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is another good example
You were saying about small articles being potential deletion candidates? 10th Royal Tank Regiment--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to break up the very long WWII rifle division list into 10s--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

turkish armed forces
I'm really sorry - don't often log in here these days - i can't promise to help either - sorryIstanbuljohnm (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

People's Militia Divisions
Just a note on these. Could you spell these out? First, not 1st. These were never a part of the regular army, and only mostly served as temporary 'march' formations for movement where they were converted to a regular unit.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that W.B. Wilson wrote any of the pieces dealing with those - I haven't done so. And the only source I've seen, the RKKABuckshot06 (talk) site with the perechen data, uses numeric, not spelled out, so I followed it's rule. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Be amazed
Wikipedia is a reference work - this means "last point of reference"

A reference work must be correct and consistent in all its aspects

Wherever there is a degree of ambiguity, it should be reduced as much as possible

If I meet someone in Wikipedia who wants to edit and can show they are capable, I will gladly contribute time to get them unbanned

Any other questions?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Start with Africa Research Bulletin: Economic, Financial and Technical Series and their cultural series (Africa Research Bulletin: something else). I have to find names and publishers of others. There is a newsstand magazine on African business, also.

Instead of searching for FARDC search for Nord-Kivu, Kivu-Nord, Tanganyika, Haut-Katanga. These are the areas international corporations are interested in for stealing mineral wealth, and economists are following what is going on with the FARDC, Rwandan, and Nkunda troops in the Kivus area. There is homestead mining and associated dangers and corruption in the two southeastern provinces. The Kivu-Nord area corruption by FARDC troops is being documented by the UN due to the refugees. Rwanda wants to exploit the lake's methane (?) in this area, it will contain the information on Rwandan land forces inside DRC, and interactions with FARDC. Internationally also for corruption on the mining contracts and the ups and downs of this year's "peace" with Nkunda and his National Congress for the People's Defence (CNPD). The fighting is having a logistics impact (transportation, personnel security) on dealing with the refugees in the camps surrounding Goma, also, meaning this issue comes up in health and disease journals (where I got most of my knowledge on DRC from, not my regular African stomping grounds). This last are often in French, but it appears you read French. I've also read specifically about the 10th military region (although I thought it was Kivu-Nord), so searching Kivu-Sud would be useful.

If you get a day at a university library running through the last 10 years of Africa Confidential would pay off more than any thing. It's just short articles 3 columns/page, 6" of a column on some event or another from other sources, listing the sources. Sorted by country. Any university library with an electronic subscription would allow you to simply print out the 2-3 relevant pages on DRC of each issue.

For databases I use the ones in the economics and public health libraries at the local university. I will call/check their website to find out what they are.

You still did a great job on the article with the limited resources you had available. It was nice to see something about Africa so well done and on the front page.

The article is mostly missing in the richness of detail that could be added from using these other sources.

--Blechnic (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to edit the brassage portion, when I get a chance. My thought is you should introduce and explain the term, but just use reintegration, instead for clarity.  This serves the dual purpose of explaining the term so people may understand it when they come upon it in the press, and not occluding the entire concept by using jargon or foreign terms.  I find Wikipedia a bit much for me, though.  You did an excellent job on this article, though.  --Blechnic (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cyber Command Wing Designations
Those two numbered wings (688th and 689th) do not have previous AFCON history - I personally believe, it is to "grow" the history of an organization from the start, not be saddled with historic antiquities. The 450th EWW was a part of SAC back in the day, and dealt with strategic operations and a flying mission. The other mission areas of AFCYBER have no precedent - thus the new wings. TDRSS (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrote AFCYBER PA today - will send/post copy of answer into your discussion page. TDRSS (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

struktura
Yes, I appreciate this is an English reference work. However, in the case of Soviet Ground Forces it deals with a subject where the direct English translation has a specific meaning applicable to the subject of the article.

Essentially, and I can bring English sources, when Soviet military referred to structure, they meant the command structure, usually drawn up in chart-form. All other references to structures are in the architectural sense.

Organisation almost always referred to the administrative functions of the military, including organisation of the combat (organizatsiya boya).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

use of capitals
My understanding is that when writing a name of a specific organisation, military or otherwise, the parts to the title may or may not be capitalised, i.e. 25th Camel Airborne Army, but not when referring to a generic units or organisations, camel airborne Army, or camel airborne armies. Another example would be United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, but not World's ministries of Defence--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Daylight saving in NZ?
Did you move your clocks back also today?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Excel
Do you have Excel, or some other spreadsheet?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Be amazed (II)
Why are so many people interested in such a small article, but have so little to say? ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A-class review of Armia Krajowa
In March you've commented on the Armia Krajowa article, which have eventually passed the A-class review. Since then I have been steadily expanding the article (my goal is to FA it one day), but in recent days a content dispute is threatening to destabilize this article; your comments would be much appreciated here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

E-mail
Ping, email in your inbox (hopefully!!) Woody (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sent you them both now... Woody (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

102d Rescue Squadron (United States)
The history section appears to be copied and pasted directly from somewhere. Is this a copyvio issue? Cromdog (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cromdog (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent prod deletion nominations
FYI, you can ask admins to delete things like outdated lists and useless sub-articles by nominating them for speedy deletion under the general housekeeping criteria. I've just added the prods you created to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military as I'm reluctant to downgrade requests for deletion once they've been made, but in the future I'd be happy to pull the trigger on other articles like those you come across if you point them out and/or I'm sure that other admins would be willing to do this if you nominate them for speedy deletion. Cheers, --Nick Dowling (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that that article be used as the basis for a List of South African Army divisions article - these exist on most countries (including NZ) and are workable alongside the category, especially as there don't seem to be articles on SA's post-war divisions, which is odd given that the Border War was, from memory, commanded by a divisional headquarters which was only disbanded a few years ago (and is going to be reformed under the upcoming restructuring). SA Divisions of WW2 is rather limited given that there weren't many of them. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just redirect both those articles to Deep operations as I think that they're plausible search terms and don't want someone to come along and recreate the articles when a more comphrensive article exists. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

omition of Guards
Not sure if you are aware, but some Russian language sources online omit the Guards designation of units in the content and cause confusion. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

National units in Red Army
Buckshot06, was it you who asked me for a list of these? I have a note on my to do list, but forgot to add who asked for it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 06:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

CIA Africa
By all means, feel free to cull. It can be worth some explanation, if something has gotten press or other notice as CIA, but turned out to be another US government organization, or something non-US where an identifiable party, which said the CIA did it, has something to gain. Many of the deals with Axis war criminals, for example, were made by Army Intelligence before the CIA existed. In other cases -- some situations in India and Sudan come to mind -- there's variously a single-sentence claim with minimal sourcing, or a public statement by an official who would benefit if foreigners did something -- and the something would be surprising if the US had the capability to do.

There have been many situations where the CIA did something on White House or other high-level orders. In those cases, it certainly could have been asked if the people receiving the order should have reported it to legal counsel or even the Congressional oversight committees, but that is a separate issue if it is believed to be a legitimate order. One of the chief problems in getting a realistic view of the CIA is identifying when it went off and did some things completely on its own, or (the 1963 South Vietnam coup comes to mind, or the assassination attempts against Castro) is where the policy was set at the White House or CIA.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This may turn into WP:BRD, which I hope is OK. The country articles are full of unnamed, or sometimes named officials claiming CIA operations, but never having any detail. There are also cases where there's a whole string of CIA involvement claims, but they tend to come back to one journalist or one book.


 * There's a delicate line of WP:OR to ask, with respect to such a claim, cui bono?" -- who benefits? For me, asking if (1) the official distracts attention from himself and (2) there's no obvious reason that CIA would benefit from doing whatever was involved, I don't put it in an article. Wikipedia, I doubt, will ever have a way to deal with "psychic negative OR"--deciding something isn't plausible and/or sourced enough to include. Other editors feel it's appropriate to put in vague things and let them be disproved, but it's traditionally hard to prove a negative.


 * It's been my general experience that regime change has any substance to it, there will be multiple sources. Obviously, the more historic the event, the more detail there will be.


 * In this case, the question needs to be asked, "what does CIA informant mean?" It's informational when an official mentions something, at a diplomatic party, to someone who is a CIA officer under diplomatic cover -- or even to a true Foreign Service Officer who reports the conversation, and a CIA analyst picks up on the report as fitting with something else. It's informational if the official ran an entire clandestine CIA HUMINT network against his own country. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RAF Northolt
Please do not list discreet aircraft operations at RAF facilities, talking about them in public makes their job more difficult and our lives less secure.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One Wikipedia is not censored, two, these aircraft are mentioned on the Station's official website, get the RAF to take them off there, and then we won't have a reliable source for here anymore. David Underdown (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From looking at the article, your comment would be better directed to Air Forces Monthly, which is a very successful magazine which is available world-wide. Anything published in it is very much in the public domain. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

33rd Army
Hi, thanks for your message - I'll have a look at the 33rd Army article, and get back to you if there's anything in my sources which could be added...Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

66 MD
I want to start an article on the division, but have a few questions. Should there be an article for the division from 41-92 and another for 92-now? Or have all of the history in the same article? There is an article on the 300th regiment which was part of the division. Here is how the history went: 293 сд – 66 гв сд – мсд – 110 гв ОУЦ ВС СССР 66 мд – 22 омбр – 300 омп ВС Украины 293 rifle division - 66 guards rifle division - 66 guards motor rifle division - 110 guards training center - 66 mechanized division - 22 mechanized brigade - 300 mechanized regiment Ceriy (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the prod tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Azazyel (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Army (Soviet army)
Buckshot06, I added one footnote as I didn't see anything else I added that seemed to need any real explanation. Cheers,W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Soviet operations
I just realised that Glantz's list I got from Craig is different somewhat to the one I made from the Soviet list. Evidently Glantz added some operations he covered in his books, such as the Moldavian in 1941 which Soviet historians consider a part of the Border battles. I'm just going through this now, and will adjust accordingly. This was precipitated by someone asking about the structure of the GSFG via another group off Wiki which led me to revise the 3rd Shock Army, etc.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been at it on and off during the day, and had only got half way ;o\ Glantz has reordered the Soviet spreadsheet and put it in his own sequence. So, I have to do a second translation because my old files are still being recovered after the crash.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Task force tags
Ok, I'll add the USAF version as a recognized variant for the US task force. (One of the benefits of this code redesign, incidentally, is that it's now trivial to add new versions of the task force parameters.

As far as Central Asia goes, that's been a potential task force for years, but there never seem to be enough editors interested in the topic to make it worthwhile. Kirill 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

proper use of speedy
Speedy deletion as nonsense is only for " an article or other page which is unsalvageably incoherent with no meaningful content or history; it is patent nonsense. This does not include poor writing, " Thus an article like Concealment devices, does not qualify for speedy under this criterion (nor does it qualify as empty or no context), I changed your speedy tag for a Prod tag. Speedy can only be used for what falls literally under the conditions at WP:CSD--otherwise use PROD or AfD. Better yet, improve the article--see WP:Deletion policy DGG (talk) 13:57, 22 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 11:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)




 * }
 * }
 * }