User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 18

Maps
These things are Wikipedia resources, see "Category:Location map templates" for a list of maps. You can check the editing in the article to see how to put the "pin" locations on the map and give them labels. I think there is a lot of potential for this tool to be used in milhist articles. For example, see the map at the top of Template:Location map+ -- shows how battle markers can be used in place of pins, etc. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the one used in the 11th Division page. This can take up to nine locations (labels). Template:Location map+ allows unlimited labels, I believe. BTW, this "code" is entered in the edited text of the article at the point where one wants the map. Hit the "Edit" tab for the Polish Land Forces article and you can find the template embedded near the end of the article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a set of battle symbols that can be used instead of the red dots that are the default. Their name can be called out by using "mark = (filename).(filetype)". Note as one uses more labels, it becomes mark2, then mark3, etc. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Another way to see the "code" is to go here, the bit where "Location map many | Poland" starts is the Wiki template for the map. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a list of Germany maps available, the Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria maps will cover most of south Germany. Another option is the "width" parameter -- makes the map (but not the pushpins) appear larger on the article page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How's this look? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NATO symbols
Hey there. Sadly, I'm currently buried under a pile of unfinished tasks, so it might take me a while before I'm back to full capacity. However, you can prepare a set of graphics easily yourself. I mean it takes 5 minutes and really basic Inkscape skills (or any other vector graphics editor) to prepare a thingy similar to this one and use them anywhere you please.

There's a pretty complete set of symbols now available here, just download the ones you need, combine them, change colours to appropriate and voila. It really is not a big deal. Unless of course it is not what you want and I misunderstood you completely. Just let me know if that's the case.  // Halibutt 11:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Buckshot06, there will be issues trying to do this. Issue one is that the NATO symbols require a fair amount of pixel width to display well -- I tried putting a mech infantry symbol at 20-pixel width on the Germany map, and all I could see was a small box.  (for reference, the red dots are now 8 pixels wide).  Issue is the text associated with the map pushpin.  The Wiki templates that do this assumed (I believe) that the text would be reasonably short -and- it assumes a small pushpin.  Another thing that was apparent when I tried the mech infantry symbol experiment was that the text overlayed the symbol (I'll modify the map here so you can see what I mean).  This is problematic, because although our symbols could include the unit number, that means a lot of unique symbols would be necessary. Use of simpler symbols with a bit of text may ultimately be more practical. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Brest in Belarus: done. The lat and lon minute label ID's were not correct for the last two entries.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

120th GR Division
Not much more than we have summarized in the list of Soviet rifle divisions article: ''120th Guards Rifle Division (ex 308th Rifle Division Sep 1943). Originally formed as 308 RD in May 1942 in the Siberian Military District. Assigned to the 24th, 62nd, and after May 1943, to the 3rd Army. In 1942–43 fought in the Battle of Stalingrad, Orel, Briansk, and at Gomel-Rechitsa. In 1944–45 fought at Rogachev (during the Rogachev-Zlobin offensive operation), Białystok, Ostrołenka, in East Prussia, and at Berlin. With 3rd Army of the 1st Belorussian Front May 1945. Postwar it became the 'show' division of the Belarussian Military District.'' One thing that is interesting with the 120th is that it was regularly assigned to the 41st Rifle Corps, and the 41st was regularly assigned to the 3rd Army during the war. It looks like the 3rd Army and 41st RC commanders liked having it as a regularly assigned formation, something that is not often seen in Soviet rifle division histories -- they tended to be thrown around between corps if not different armies.

This is a small tidbit from a google books result.

Basic structure: 334th Guards Rifle Regiment, 336th Guards Rifle Regiment, 339th Guards Rifle Regiment, 310th Guards Artillery Regiment (from this page)

A Russian user might be able to glean some more from this article on the 308th/120th.

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

French Army brigade location map
Beat me to it! Nice job. What do you think for Russia, maybe field army HQ locations? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure about maps of the individual districts,this was the best I could find on short notice, but it ties them all together, and what is worse, the projection type of the map will not work unless some cartographic whiz can determine the appropriate coordinate conversion formulae for the template. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I looked at this (this is NCMD you meant?) but it is just a portion of the same map I mention above with the same projection issues. Or maybe I am confused. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I stumbled by chance on this topic and had immediately a go at the location maps too :-)
 * Italian Army
 * Alpini
 * Sassari Mechanized Brigade
 * the Aosta Brigade I will do later tonight (and the rest of the brigades if I can find location maps for South, Central and North Italy - because a map of all of Italy is just to big) noclador (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I spent my day doing a map with all units (save logistic and signals) of the Italian Army today... (and below the main map - maps for each of the 3 operational corps's: COMALP, COMFOD 1, COMFOD 2) Talk:Italian_Army noclador (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmen
Would you be willing to be involved in the discussion that has re-started on the article Iraqi Turkmen concerning their language? Turco85 archived the talk page and user:MamRostam03 has stated that Turco85 archived the page under questionable circumstances. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Polish Land Forces
quick note: The Polish Land Forces disbanded the 1st Mech. Div. and the 1st Artillery Brigade. The 21st Podhale Rifles Brig. is now directly under the command of the Land Forces Command and the 1st Armored Brig. is now under the 16th Mech. Div. What has happened to the 3rd Mech. Legion Brigade I do not know. noclador (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * the websites are not really helpful - they are way out of date! this is the best source I found however a White Book would be best; but it seems they did not publish one for this reform. noclador (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 reform
Sorry, for the 2012 reform I can't write a paragraph yet - the info for the map on my talk is from an internal strategy paper and not yet official or public - I nonetheless made already a graphic to have it easier to write a paragraph on the new reform quickly, when it is finally announced. noclador (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: a quick note - the Italians never did a really comprehensive Army reform. They disbanded regiments every now and then without a plan, disbanded brigades now and then, reshuffled the rest as it seemed fit, moved units south, reorganized some brigades (or often the brigade would reorganize itself...) and overall did not follow any strategy with their reorganization... This upcoming reform will be the first true reform! With a new structure (2 Divisions: Division North with 1 Heavy Brigade and 3 Light Brigades and Division South with 1 Heavy Brigade and 3 Medium Brigades) (+ SF Brigade, Signal Brigade, Amphibious Navy Brigade) [at least according to the paper I saw - which is dated July 2011]. However I believe we will see a even stronger reduction now that the Italian government will be forced to save even harder to avoid default! possibly each brigade will loose one of the planned 3 combat battalions (+ recon, fire, engineer). As said - nothing is yet for sure and hopefully whoever will be the next defense minister will continue to work on a thought out reform plan. noclador (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the in 1997 the 3 existing corps were renamed as 3 Corps -> COMFOP (later NRDC-Italy), 4 Corps -> COMALP and 5 Corps -> COMFOD 1 - a year later the COMFOD 2 in Naples was activated. Besides that lots of units were disbanded in these 2 years and the rest added to the Support Brigades (i.e. Artillery Brigade which since then contains: MRLS, Towed Artillery, Self-Propelled Artillery, NBC Defence and PsyOps units...). As for the basic unit structure of the brigades - that is unchanged since the 1975 reform! noclador (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will write a little info about the 1986 abolition of the division level, the 1991 reduction in the number of brigades, the 1997 "reform" and the last reduction in 2002. give me a few days to write it. cheers, noclador (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks, I answered your question on my talkpage. noclador (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * again a little info on my talk. Please also note the post above here for the Polish Land Forces. Updated graphic is coming for the Polish Land Forces too, although I have at this time 0 info on the planned end-state of the Polish Land Forces after the current reorganization. Do you have such information? thanks, noclador (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

About your vandalism in Almaty article
Read here - & stop vandalism!95.56.150.140 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Kazakhstan photos
Hei buckshot, i want replace those photos: - File:Young Pioneers in Kazakh SSR.jpg, File:Prokudin-Gorskii Russians in Central Asia.jpg; I think photos of russian immigrants here, are not correct... What you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamal44 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, about mr. Buckshot06
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Buckshot06_threat_users_in_Kazakhstan_topics

95.56.150.140 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

abbreviations
Done. This document translates the OOB abbreviations -- a nice reference. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the maps are fun to do. Too bad I'm so distracted with RL at the moment.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Special Force units
Yes! great idea! could you please move the list? thanks, noclador (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ghana map / National Armed Forces of Cote d'Ivoire
Couple of Lat/Lons were wrong, but the big issue is west longitude -- has to be specified with negative numbers for this template. Some of the templates allow specification of E or W (see the template for Structure of the British Army). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Jane's information I have is from 2008, thus it predates the latest civil war. I got a small bit from the CIA Fact Book site and the name of the Defence Minister from the IC government website.  Looks damned sketchy beyond that. I'll leave the article alone for the moment. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LOC country study on line appears to date from 1990. Not much use, I'm afraid. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Jane's order of battle is shown in the location map. What may not be clear is the location of the Region HQ; I - Abidjan, II - Dalao, III - Bouaké, IV - Korhogo. 2005 estimate of strength was 9,000 regular and 10,000 reserve troops.  The information I have is printed, not in electronic format.  If you have other questions, ask and I'll see if the text addresses the question.  Source is Jane's World Armies Issue 23 (2008), pp. 176-179. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention -- Jane's 2008 states that Korhogo and Bouaké were under rebel control at that point, so the status of the military units shown there is questionable. I have a 1979 book by Keagan that discusses the IC for a page or two, I'll see what it has to say about the army during that year.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is World Armies. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * From Keegan's 1979 edition. 4,900 in armed forces of which 250 in navy and 200 in air force.  Gendarmerie had 3,000 personnel.  French 4e RIM was already at Port Bouet.  Army had three infantry battalions, a light tank squadron, an artillery battery, a recon company, and an engineer battalion.  Air force had only transport and liaison craft.  Equipment included AMX-13 tanks, AML H60 and H90 armoured cars, as well as 105mm howitzers and 120mm mortars.  Infantry battalions had 81mm mortars for fire support.  There was also ten 40mm AA guns.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

On the "List of Aircraft operated by the Ivory Coast Air-Force" part of the article. Wondering if this should just be commented out. The table above it depicts the aircraft in service and provides a source. The list below appears to be unsourced and for the most part lists aircraft that are not claimed to be in service. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Bo

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

6th Guards Army
Actually, another user contributed the bulk of the text for the article. Not sure how to e-mail; I don't see any links for it on your user or talk page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like I'd have to have email enabled for this feature to work. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

27th Division
You caught me off-guard mate :) Normally when writing on military history I spend more time researching and less time writing. However, this article was simply a compilation of Polish and Russian wiki articles on the division, without any serious research on my side. Hence I would assume it's still sub-standard (thanks for pointing that out). As I work on Battle of Radzymin (1920) currently, I simply wanted to quickly de-red the link (the article on 21st Rifle Division to take part in that battle also needs some love in the future. BTW, could you take a look at that article in your spare time? I'm currently improving it for GA&A-class standard with FA in mind. Any comments/improvements could help.

On a wider note, I noticed that the Russian historiography on RKKA's division is often lacking wider perspective. This is even visible in wiki articles. For instance Russian articles often are clones of Great Soviet Encyclopedia and completely omit any losses or defeats. On the other hand Polish articles often focus on their fate in Poland (usually not that happy in 1920) and do not go into too much detail when it comes to 1941.  // Halibutt 16:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

New Edits to the
Please note that the reason for the clean-up edit was due to a number of new entries on the page that are not up to Wiki standards.

These edits have cluttered the page, and created duplicate entries such as the "History" section which in detail describes the history of the Polish Armed Forces, and in the process totally disregards the fact that there is an entire wiki page devoted to this subject (History of the Polish Army, and Polish contribution to World War II). (On a page such as Polish Armed Forces only short general sections should be created that in turn link with other pages that cover a specific subject in greater detail.)

Also, not only is the page full of duplicate material it is also poorly edited, and has numerous factual errors. This in turn has created an unfriendly overall impression of the subject matter making it difficult for the reader to get a clear understanding of the material covered. In the "Modernization" section military equipment that has not even been purchased by the military is now listed as being part of the new inventory. Also, the poor choice of pictures included in the new section does not depict the Polish military in a proper light, and only invites negative perceptions.

In the end, the recent edits seem very amateurish and lack clear structure. As one of the original contributors to the page I ask that the recent editors reconsider their entries and refocus his contributions.

Remember you are not the only person who contributes to this page...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk)

Polish Armed Forces edits
I would like to ask very frankly... who are you? Within the last couple of weeks you have made more edits to this page than anyone has made at any time in the past.

Also, as a member of the wiki community and being of polish descent myself... I'm ashamed to look at this page now, you really think that that your edits like the picture titled "Polish troops, 1951" gives the proper impression of the polish military, let me be the first one to tell you that it only invites a negative and sarcastic perception. Look at the military pages of say... Canadian Forces or Israel Defense Forces and tell me that you think your edits are of the same quality. Before you started, the Polish Armed Forces page was short and to the point, but it was informative and did not showing the polish troops in a diminutive light.

So, if you are going to edit... than edit with quality. There are tons of historic pictures on wiki commons that are much better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

17th Gurkha Division
Hi - I have made a start to the article with details of when is was set up and disbanded, locations and GOCs. However I have now exhausted the material to which I have access. If you have any more material that would be great. Dormskirk (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Haller's Blue Army
Please note that the issue of removing sourced information has been confirmed by the administrator Volunteer Marek... he stated that I have correctly took out material in question which was POV... and you can see his direct quote below.. and also on the discussion page.

"but, Faustian, both these sources are problematic, at least for the purposes that you seem to indent to use them for. The first one specifically says that it is referring to perceptions. It even says "What is important here is not facts themselves but the way in which they have been seen and remembered". This does not at all support the inclusion of the text you propose. The way you seem to want to put it into the article is actually quite misleading and bordering on straight up POV pushing done via out-of-context citation."

So,before you restrict my access you should really read the discussion page. Some people are dumping POV's onto Wikipedia and then claim it was sourced material! Not only that, when one administrator does not agree with them, they go to another who will support his view. SHAME!!!

AND AGAIN PLEASE UNRESTRICT MY ACCESS UNDER IP ADDRESS 76.118.227.161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.211.76 (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is a lie. VM was referring to sources I mentioned in the discussion section of that article, not to the refwerenced info he has been removing.Faustian (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

British division names
I've been looking into British division names (as promised) and this is quite a can of worms! The sources seem fairly clear that during the WWI era all "infantry" divisions were of the form Xth (Title) Division, with cavalry divisions being Xth Cavalry Division or Xth Mounted Division.

The WWII part is a bit more complicated. I would guess that if a change happened, it would happen sometime after the "Mobile Division" was formed in 1937. I've sampled bits of the London Gazette during the 1930s, as probably a good guide to official usage, and can find plenty of uses of "Division", very few of "Infantry Division" - eg, 1935, 1939. Both are unabbreviated. However, there is a mix of styles in the post-WWII despatches - "5 British Infantry Division", "1 (British) Infantry Division, 46 Infantry Division ... 4 (British) Division" (three options!), "the Highland Division". These probably reflect varying personal preferences rather than official style; I'm having trouble tracking down official names in the Gazette from the 1940s, presumably because they didn't announce formations when referring to commanders at this time.

The official history seems to use Xth Division, not Xth Infantry Division (eg/ France 1940 OOB.) The terminology noted here is interesting:


 * The organization of the British Army for a major war was centred round the DIVISION, in which the basic arm was the infantry. There was also the CAVALRY DIVISION and the ARMOURED DIVISION, in which the basic arms were the cavalry and the tank arm respectively. All three types were represented in the Middle East.

The term was definitely formally adopted at a later date, however; in 1987, the one remaining division was in the Gazette as 2nd Infantry Division. Unfortunately, this doesn't much help us - it's still an open question as to what the official terminology was during most of WWII. Perhaps later official histories might help... Shimgray | talk | 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Corpses
An amusing question: is the plural of Corps is Corpses? :) Also, see Polish Armed Forces in the East (1914-1920) for an overview article on yet another piece of mostly forgotten history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

proposed mergers
Buckshot06, normally I would not recommend the merger of the I Corps article with Polish Armed Forces in the West, but I agree the article on the corps itself is not that significant since it did not fight as such -- I Corps, unlike II Corps, had a purely administrative function within the context of the Allied war effort.

Two other articles that may be candidates for merger are History of Poland (1939–1945) and Polish contribution to World War II. They cover different topics; one is more about Poland internally and the other is more about the exploits of the Polish military during the war. It may simply be that the second article could stand to have a more self-explanatory title such as "Polish military in World War II". Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to see stubs as fine, as long as they are notable. And it's not like we are dealing with WP:STUB. Particularly what's helpful is that stubs can be more properly categorized, interwikid, and tagged. So if we agree that the Corpses are notable (still need to create article on the 3rd one), I'd suggest leaving them in place. If you disagree, I'd suggest a discussion on the talk page, advertised at WT:POLAND and WT:MILHIST. Your changes looks fine, expansion is always good, and I don't think anything was removed, but the gallery, which I agree should be on Commons. If you'd like a quality review, I'll be happy to to a WP:POLAND B-class to accompany a MILHIST one (see WikiProject Poland/Reviews). Regarding the contribution article above, it's an interesting point, and something to be discussed on a wider forum. I thought that we had a series of Foolandia contribution to WWII articles, but I am not seeing others... Perhaps Wilson is right and a simple rename would be sufficient? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 20:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done some further expansion and inline referencing, and provided more discussion of sources on talk. Unfortunately, no dedicated work or section is available in an easy-to-view digital format, although based on excerpts I've analyzed I'd expect it exists somewhere. Proving that, however, is not something I can do easily, and I'd rather not spend several hours pursuing this if I can use this time to improve content more easily elsewhere. I hope that the new sources and added expansion helps with the notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to go on some spree and create tiny articles, but please note that being a stub is no reason for deletion, nor merger. I feel that even a tiny stub helps, as it can easily link the reader to the pl wiki larger article, and it has the correct placement in Wikipedia structure (name and category wise). Even lack of references is not a reason for a speedy deletion or merger, although I agree references should be added (I added some to the 16th Brigade). If you look at Merging, you will note that merge is discouraged if articles have potential for expansion, which if nothing else, pl wiki pages suggest they do. Notability of subjects is roughly the same on Polish and English wikipedia. I believe that all articles on Polish Wikipedia should eventually end up on English one, although - no worries - I do not intend to achieve this by mass stubbing mil units. Let me repeat, however, again: merging should not be done to articles that have potential for expansion; it can be seen by some as a "sneaky deletion", as it is not reported in Article Alerts or such. Let me ask you this: whenever you think about merging a Polish article, start a discussion and report it to WT:POLAND. We may try to help with expansion, as we did at the 1st Corps. But do not merge articles without a discussion, with all due respect for the great work you are doing, I see such merges as potentially disruptive. Lastly: if you think this is an issue of enough importance, consider creating a proper Notability (military units) guide that would allow us to easily determine which units are notable. PS. I agree we need more guidelines and organization with regards to military units, and it is possible that we will reach a consensus when articles such as the 16th Independent Armoured Brigade are seen as not notable. But I don't feel it should be done on case by case basis, a proper notability guideline is needed. On the note of notability, I found at least one source (in Polish, linked in the article) that devotes at least one dedicated paragraph to that brigade. Unfortunately, I see only the beginning of it, so I cannot use it to expand the article easily, but I am confident the entire paragraph (at least) is dedicated to the unit (based on what I can make out of the book structure). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll start a discussion on talk, how's that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to look at this through notability, because I am pretty sure that stubbinesh and lack of references are no official reason for a merge (deletion). In fact, as you can see from my comment at talk of the 16th brigade, upon reviewing of the sources, I agree that merger may be carried out due to lack of notability (sources). I try to add sources to my articles, including footnotes, but I don't do them always to stubs I consider notable. In the 16th case, a closer look shows notability issues indeed, and we will probably end up merging it in a few days, as I doubt anybody can find sources. As I do not intent to create a significant amount of Polish mil unit stubs (or more to the point, I do not intend to create any in the near future, unless another one strikes my fancy randomly), I don't think my actions will be of much concern to you either way. I fully support your goal to organize and improve the existing articles, but I'll say it once again - according to our guidelines and rules (AFAIK), being a stub or being poorly references is no grounds for merger or deletion. One has to demonstrate more - such as no notability - for that. I do not intent to make a fuss about it (other than perhaps propose creation of mil unit notability guideline, with no reference to our discussion), as this is not a priority for me, but I'd implore you to look at the related rules and consider my words, because if I am right, you may find yourself challenged by somebody who cares more about it in the future. PS. Yes, most of Wikipedia articles are stubs. I don't see a problem with it, they grow up, and even if takes years in some cases, that's a positive trend. I also believe, just like WP:RED recommends creation of red links, that existence of stubs encourages people to expand them more so than if they do not exist. This I see such merging as detrimental to the potential development of said articles. But again, I don't want to mess up with your work, mate, just wanted to let you know where I am coming from. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, which talk page notice? Could you link me to it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, that was fine. I'd just say in the future you may want to advertise at other related projects to avoid accusations of selective canvassing (I had this happen to me in the past). I added the note to WT:POLAND, btw, at Wikipedia_talk:POLAND. W/ regards to Kirill, perhaps I am having a slow brain day, but I have not a clue what you are taking about...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  18:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On an ending note here, I thought earlier about stubbing pl:16 Dnowsko-Łużycka Brygada Pancerna, but now I am not sure. Should I? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If we have the redirects, that should be fine for now. Let me know if you need help with any parts of the translation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

16th Tank Brigade
Kind of an interesting thing here. I had wondered by the Poles claimed the 16th Tank Brigade but that it was shown as a Soviet unit in the official order of battle. Turns out the brigade was moved en masse from the Soviet Army to the LWP in February 1945. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to be confused with the 16th Independent Armoured Brigade I just stubbed :) We will probably need a disambig at 16th Armoured Brigade (Poland)... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 01:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Buckshot06, noticed this article 34th Tank Division exists. Should the SWW history of the 34th be included in the existing 34th TD article?  The 16th TB part could be included up until the point it transferred to the Polish forces.  What do you think?  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: 34th, it could go either way. If there is any tradition tie-in (probably not), they should be on the same page.  On Feskov, I'll probably get the work at some point, but thanks for the offer. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that on the 10th Tank Corps during the Battle of Berlin period, it is shown in both Боевой состав Советской Армии на 1 апреля 1945 г. and Боевой состав Советской Армии на 1 мая 1945 г. as being one of the assets of the RVGK, not the 5th Guards Tank Army as Niehorster asserts. From what I can see, 5th Guards Tank Army was in some kind of less active state during this period; it only controlled one tank corps and is not shown on Soviet official history maps during this period.  This may be tied in with the illness of its commander during this period. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

T-34 photo
2nd Mechanized Corps (Soviet Union) -- curious photo added to the article. I could see it if the tank in question was part of 2MC, but as it is, it appears to be a generic "burning Russian tank" photo. The question "why here" comes to mind. Perhaps because the corps took heavy losses in 1941? Not too important at any rate. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it just seems to me some parts of Wikipedia have a way of smelling of German propaganda when it comes to the E Front. I've been looking at the Kamenets-Podolsky Pocket article.  Compared to some articles, it is not bad, but like the historiography upon which it is no doubt based, the view is primarily German.  -- too little time for a lot of these things, but I'll try to work some Soviet perspective into it, since, after all, the 1st Pz Army was trying to get away from Soviet breakthroughs. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Morsels (anon)
I don't advertise them much, and the anon... one I don't think mentioned it more than few times. If you think somebody would be interested in this point, please feel free to advertise it or comment on it anywhere you want :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (in reply to Buckshot06) - There is a lot of merit in Piotrus' suggestion, but there may be drawbacks as well. I've noted on the German Wikipedia that one can make anon edits but they have to be vetted and accepted by editors who are a higher class of user.  The problem with this kind of system is that it demands a team of "identity verified" people who have damn-near perfect ethics -- and that will be hard to assemble on a volunteer project of the size of the English-language Wikipedia.  Then again, I'm older and more cynical every day, so I'm perhaps not able to provide a balanced opinion on this topic. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt that any arguments could cause a significant change of Wikipedia structure now. Things have gone too far. But if you like it, please by all means take it where you want, and propose something based on that. I'll certainly review it and likely throw my weight behind it. PS. Why do you say "better coming from you than me"? I'd have thought otherwise :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Moves of Indian Air Force squadron articles
I have my concerns that "IAF" is not the best choice - there are three IAF's I can think of straight away: Iraqi, Indian and Israeli air forces. Though these may not, at the moment, have overlapping squadron numbers there is potential for confusion.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Injanah AB
This was on a list of Iraqi Air Bases I received last summer. Although it may have been demilitarized by the USAF, that's about the extent of it's use. Have edited it out to reflect that. Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

another photo to be deleted
Belgian commandos memorial.jpg file to be deleted because of the "panorama" law -- I have to be blunt, this is nothing more than paranoid Wikipedia bullshit. The lawyers have won. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are great suggestions. Not sure the time allowed by the process will enable me to get much done.  The ironic thing is that I'm going to Belgium today.  I don't really expect to have the authorities waiting for me at the border; frankly, the Belgians have much bigger fish to fry these days.  BTW, sorry for the outburst on your talk page.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a bookstore that handles in military material in the town I'm going to; if I get the chance, I'll swing by it to see if they have any material on Zaire etc. You should have been there a few years back; my brother and I visited a museum dedicated to the Belgian Congo and the old guys running it had actually been part of the colonial administration.  Interesting discussion that was. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't see anything on Zaire in the store today. Don't know if you've seen what I wrote in Free Belgian Forces under the "The Force Publique in Africa" header, a tiny bit about their SWW service there.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberate vs conquer, Take Two
Buckshot06, a couple of diffs for reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerch%E2%80%93Eltigen_Operation&diff=prev&oldid=435040034

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belgrade_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=434727233

We had a discussion with an IP editor in late June regarding the editor's changing the word "liberate" to what the editor described as a "more neutral term"; this was in relation to the Kerch-Eltigen Operation article. At the time, I asked the IP editor if they were also the person who made the change noted in the second diff regarding the Belgrade Offensive article. IIRC, there was no reply to my question. I looked at Geolocate for the IP addresses today and saw they are both from the same provider in Melbourne. My guess is that is was the same user in both cases.

I ran across this again today when there was an unrelated change to the Kerch Eltigen article and have to admit in retrospect the whole thing is a bit troublesome. Frankly, other than the interests of some nationalist factions, I find it hard to believe either the Crimea or Belgrade weren't glad to have the Nazis gone; that is, that there was a genuine feeling of having been liberated in these cases. What irritates me about these edits is that I have the feeling this IP editor showed up and imposed a POV upon the articles while using some guardhouse lawyer arguments and assuming a "noble" purpose that purported to place more neutrality in the articles. The trouble here, of course, is that the IP editor may have had an axe to grind regarding any praise for achievements of communist armies. In other words, did Wikipedia get whacked by a propaganda hit-and-run?

It is not tremendously important in the great scheme of the project, but there are two items I note. One is that the edit in the case of the Belgrade Offensive article is clumsy and reads poorly as a result of the IP editor's actions. The second is that I wonder how many edits this user made in the name of "more neutral terms" -- probably using multiple IP addresses, either by accident or design. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Found another instance with a third IP address (probably dynamically assigned per session by a DSL service) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belgrade_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=436810351 Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

American Free Corps
American Free Corps -- here is one that's laughable. The article is tagged as being dependent on a single source, and even this single source states that no SS volunteer unit made up of U.S. troops ever existed. Makes my eyes roll that some of my articles get tagged with "citation needed" markers while balderdash like this article have none and yet make up part of the MILHIST article space. I guess I'm feeling cranky this evening. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for deletion of files
Buckshot06, I really bungled trying to set up a Cold War Germany map template today. Request these be deleted, as they cannot be accessed by the location map scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Location_Cold_War_Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Location_Map_Cold_War_Germany

It appears the word "map" has to appear in the title after "Location" and the "m" in map has to be small case. If you could whack these two templates, that would be great. Watch out for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Location_map_Cold_War_Germany -- this is the correct version with the small "m". Thanks, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Very many thanks for the barnstar - it is really appreciated. Dormskirk (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

HQ Land Forces
I would welcome your further thoughts on this subject on the HQ Land Forces talk page. I think "Commander Land Forces" and "Army Headquarters" are both options. I still slightly favour "Army Headquarters" (as the page is about the command structure rather than the personality) but could easily be persuded to go with "Commander Land Forces". Dormskirk (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Force Publique
From Malcom Bellis' Commonwealth Divisions 1939-1945, pp. 44-45. ISBN is 0-9529693-0-0. Thomas refers to Nigel Thomas' Foreign Volunteers of the Allied Forces 1939-45, p. 17, ISBN 1-85532-136-X. This could be useful -- Belgian history of the Ethiopian campaign. Hope this helps. Amazing how much one small kingdom can do when it is strongly irritated. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * North Eastern District: Sudan and Uganda border defence, disbanded Jan 1942. 3rd Colonial Brig to Jun 1940, 1st Colonial Brig to Jan 1941
 * Southern District: Rhodesia border defence, 2nd Infantry Regiment
 * Western District: 3rd Infantry Regiment, Congo River estuary defence force
 * Interior: Internal security role, three groups of two battalions each belonging to the "European Volunteer Corps"
 * Ruanda Urundi District: 3rd Territorial Service Group
 * 1st and 3rd brigades had 6000 men and 4000 porters each. FP as a whole in Jan 1942 had 2000 officers, 34,350 other ranks, 5000 volunteer territorial guards, and 8,200 auxiliaries and porters.
 * 1st Belgian Colonial Brigade in Congo Jun 1940 to Jan 1941, in Nigeria Jan 1941 to Apr 1943. Then re-formed as Belgian Colonial Motor Brigade Group, in Nigeria Apr 1943, then north Africa and Middle East Sep 1943 to Nov 1944 (Thomas: Jun 1943 in Suez, May to Sep 1944 in Palestine), believed to have returned to Congo thereafter.  Three (later four) battalions of infantry, one (later zero) heavy weapons battalion, two artillery batteries, mortar company, antitank company, and heavy machine gun company.
 * 2nd Belgian Colonial Brigade believed formed in the Congo in Feb 1944.
 * 3rd Belgian Colonial Brigade formed in Congo Jun 1940, detached from NE District Feb 1941, disbanded Apr 1942, re-formed Feb 1944. In Congo Jun 1940 until Feb 1941, then fought in the campaigns in East Africa (Ethiopia and Abyssinia) and served as occupation troops from Feb 1941 until Apr 1942, back in Congo Apr 1942.  Included two infantry battalions, a field artillery battery, and a mortar company.


 * Also useful - Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's tough. Try to even find decent OOB's for NATO countries in the 1950s -- all practically forgotten and very little available on the internet.  We'd probably need access to these titles:

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Histoire de la Force Publique" du Lieutenant Général F.P. Emile Janssens, Ghesquière & Partners Éditeurs, 1979.
 * "La force publique de sa naissance à 1914" de Flament F. et al., Bruxelles, IRCB, 1952.


 * Regarding your earlier suggestion about editing and review systems; while I doubt the community would change now, I am well aware of the benefits such a system could bring. Wikipedia sort wandered out into the world like a child full of sunny optimism who didn't realize just how many long-running disputes were going on "out there". Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Spychasky/Eisenhower picture
To answer your questions... I and don't mean to make personal attacks, but as a New Zealander you are simply unaware of the neutrality issues, and bias that is exhibited by some American editors (since many of them are of different ethnic backgrounds and hold old world grudges)... As a Polish-American, I constantly see edits that show a strong bias, or are worded in such a way as to create a unbalanced, and false perceptions of Polish subject matter. Take the Haller's Blue Army (Poland) page... when I first came upon this page a few weeks ago, so much of the page was devoted to Jewish subject matter, and examples used were so extreme that the reader came away thinking that the Blue Army was worse than the Waffen-SS (which has a page that is much more neutral in tone). Below I included a excerpt from the talk page where one other user along with myself objected to some of the descriptions used:

'''but, Faustian, both these sources are problematic, at least for the purposes that you seem to indent to use them for. The first one specifically says that it is referring to perceptions. It even says "What is important here is not facts themselves but the way in which they have been seen and remembered'''

Yet despite a clear bias and questionable edits, we are still not able to get the page to a neutral point of view. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg. So, when I saw that picture which showed some kids that just became soldiers, and just looked plain goofy and amateurish, I immediately remembered other examples where "lousy" pictures were used to discredit and ridicule pages on Polish subject matter. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This article needs help
3rd Baltic Front. I'll see if I can find some basic information. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 34th Tank Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links to Second Army, Borisov and Southwestern Front


 * No. 9 Group RAF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Preston

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about account logins
Is it okay to edit under an IP address when one has a regular account as well? Strikes me as very close to, if not the same thing as, operation of a sock puppet when it is not identified on the user page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From Sock puppetry - Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the use of multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies is called sock puppetry and is not allowed.


 * Sock puppetry can take on several different forms:


 * Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
 * Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
 * Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address


 * So the question becomes is this deliberate sock puppetry or just sloppy login practice. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Understand. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Polish Armed Forces
Not to belabor these image issues endlessly, but -- I notice the images in this article all seem to be of the army while the article is kind of an overview of all three primary services. Perhaps one photo of a Polish ship and one Air Force photo vice some of the army photos that are there now might be something to consider. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Royal Moroccan Army
Did you check up all the history?

I see that tou didn't, ¿Why I know thaT? because you didn't see how I changed all the page, putting the purchases in discussion in a topic called "Possibly purchased or under negotiation". So, next time try to find the way all the history changed, and, you've just erased all the changes in the introduction, the origins, etc. So, can you tell me why you are warning me? I should warn you, because you could easly erase what you didn't like, and not revert all my job. So...check out all the history and all the changes. Cause the are a lot of pages in wikipedia.en that talks about future purchases, under negotiations or even not updated and not verified information. So, try to change the rest of pages that have the same topic "under negotiation and possibly purchased", and try to find what was the problem between me and Jonathon A H. I found a way to not include these in the actual material, can you respect that?

Thanx

PS: read please all the history and you'll see the changes I did...and then maybe you'll revert your "reverted changes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrisius (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Morocco
Sorry, not much there other than the oft-quoted "1500 troops", but no unit identifications. Keegan later mentions them as being "excellent" in his section on Zaire when Shaba I is mentioned. I'll look around, but as usual for African forces, information is scarce. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Had a more successful search. Here are several items, but I saw two things of larger interest.  Two sources state the 1977 intervention was 1300 vice 1500 troops, and one source mentions Moroccan paratroopers in 1977 -- points to the two paratroop brigades in the Moroccan Army, which I suspect may have provided the intervention troops.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Last bit is on Shaba II:


 * -- Command and General Staff College paper


 * Hope this helps. It is thin, but better than nothing.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Question
34th_Tank_Division looks good, I did few tweaks. Do you think you could stub Soviet 52nd Army, linked from the Battle of Bautzen (1945)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 10:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted merge
I have reverted your merge of People's Army of Poland, see Talk:People's_Army_of_Poland. Would you be so kind and list all of the Poland-related articles you've merged in the past months? I would like to review those edits, if you don't mind. Also, if you want to merge n article, it is customary to add a merge template, and start a discussion on talk. It would be nice if you were to announce a merge intention at WT:POLAND, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please note that I disagree with merger of multiple formations into one, and such a discussion should at the very least be a major MILHIST one, with notifications to other projects. I respect your efforts and expertise, but dozens - hundreds even - of articles created over many years, by many editors, should not have their faith determined by a discussion at one or two userpages. We need a community discussion for the merges. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, I wasn't concerned about neutrality, just the lack of announcement at WT:POLAND. In my experience, the more venues an announcement is made, the better. For example, I don't watch most of MILHIST discussion boards. A good rule of thumb is to look at wikiproject templates on affected articles, and leave a note on them, but if taskforces are present, do it both for the taskforce and parent projects. What I mean by this is that for a milhist article with a Poland task force, one should leave a note on the task force page, main/relevant milhist page, and the WP:POLAND page. I hope this is helpful, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that many of the pages in question are not watched, but occasionally they can be stumbled or pop-up on somebody's watchlist. Ditto for project announcements. The wider the net, the more likely that we will find somebody who cares. For example, I care enough about LWP to argue that is should not be merged, and maybe if time permits make few improvement edits to the article - but I was not aware it was merged till I've stumbled on a redirect where I remembered we have an article just minutes ago... --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which comment of mine was close to causing offense? Please let me know and I'll review it immediately. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, and I am sure every now and then I say something without considering all the implications my words my have. We are just humans, in the end. As long as we assume good faith and work towards the improvement of the project, and respect one another, that's all that matters. Instead of a wiki cake, here, check this new article of mine on a poorly known but notable Polish military painter I've just finished expanding: Stefan Garwatowski. I couldn't even find a single page online collecting information on his works... and sadly, we cannot use his works to illustrate our project :( As I am not in US at present, in case you get full view of Google Books in New Zealand, could you see if you can see more info in ? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can replace unreferenced list/section with a link to a better subarticle. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 13:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In 38th (Irish) Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Carinthia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Korsun-Cherkassy
On the German unit names, I think the only "armored" I'm using is in the separate orbat article. I am wary of the naming issue, though. It is easy to write "III Panzer Corps" (which is technically okay as "panzer" was adopted as a word in the English language after the war, like "Stuka" etc.) Where it gets messy is that some editors get more and more German, using, for example "III Panzerkorps" (definitely not English) or Kessel. I don't even care for the use of "cauldron" -- not sure if the British use this in their English, but the usual form I've heard for such military situations is "pocket" or "salient". "Cauldron" sounds to me like a too-literal translation of Kessel.

Not sure where in the article you're referring to about the historian's names? I honestly don't care much for the "assessment" paragraph as it is; it is solely the views of Nash (a U.S. Army historian who produced a pretty much one-sided work in the style of what the German generals did after the war, from what I could see in electronic views of his book) with a bit of Zetterling thrown in. . . who has made interesting contributions, but again, is a historian who sees the war with a German bias. Put briefly, the assessment could use a bit more balance. I read through the German official history this morning and had to laugh; it is harder on the Germans and more balanced than Nash is, judging from the quotes in the article. The article overall needs some work, but I can tell that someone made attempts to redress the German POV issues. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Whew. I've finished the major edits to this article. Request you give it a look and see if the "German POV" tag can now be removed. Other comments / edits welcomed. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bundeswehr vs Wehrmacht
III Army Corps (Germany) -- IIRC the discussion you pointed me to, isn't linking the wartime and postwar units together in an article discouraged? This article is entirely about the III Panzer Corps. Perhaps a move is in order? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Polish Army Soldiers 1951.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Not sure if you saw this notice. URL for deletion discussion on Commons is W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Piatt Runkle
I've significantly expanded and, I hope, improved the Benjamin Piatt Runkle article. I believe he's notable not only for his military rank, but also for his positions with the Freedmen's Bureau and his Supreme Court case, Runkle v. United States. While working on the article, I came across this reference that may convince you to change your opinion at WP:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Piatt Runkle. After examining this reference, I'm not convinced Runkle's military rank was purely honorary &mdash; even though it appears he was brevetted after the war, he was still in the army and he is repeatedly referred to as Brigadier General Runkle in period citations from the book referenced. For example: p. 289 "Brigadier General Benjamin Runkle suggested in his testimony before the congressional invesigating commitee..." and p 291 "before I let any of them leave the hospital I reported them to General Runkle...", etc. If he was brevetted to Major General, why the references to him as a Brigadier? I don't know if that's enough to sway you, but he appears to be more than a Colonel of volunteers who founded a fraternity &mdash; pretty much the state of the article a week ago. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Destroyer Squadron One (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Squadron


 * Second Air Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fort Crook


 * Wing (military aviation unit) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Aviation Regiment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

NZ 1st Brigade
Hi, Do you know if the recently-raised 1st Brigade (New Zealand) has inherited the lineage of the First World War-era 1st Brigade? I've just created an article on the 'new' brigade. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just saw that New Zealand re-activated the 1st Brigade - so I will do an update of the NZ Army! however - under which command fall now the reserve battalion groups?? noclador (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"On the goals of military organization articles in Wikipedia"
Buckshot06, in reply to your question -- my reply would be yes, any action that is particular to the headquarters itself belongs to the "proper" scope of the article. That "thought" BTW is still fairly incomplete; at this point it is more of a complaint about repetitive material than anything else. I'll have to polish it a bit. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'm sure I've probably done what I described as it is easier to write about well known battles than comparatively "softer" material like command decisions at the, for example, corps level. Cheers and hope the holiday was rewarding. One nice thing about being in central Europe is that Christmas extends to a second day! W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand Army
I did a graphic for the new Structure of the NZ Army (it is on my talkpage). if it is correct, could you please add it to the appropriate section of the New Zealand Army page. thanks Furthermore - as it is a slow day at work - I did a graphic of the 1st US Cavalry Division as it went into WWII:



as with the NZ Army graphic - please add at will to the appropriate section in the 1st US Cavalry Division article. noclador (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * no problem - it will take about a minute to change the stars to 3 stripes for regimental commanders. just let me know how you wish the graphic to be. noclador (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

old OrBat graphics
I uploaded the old (now historic) graphics of Armies that did major reforms in the time since I began to do the OrBat charts - the following lists the Armies (the new name also includes the duration of the structure in question; however most times I only know until when the structure was active).


 * Australian Army until 2009
 * Belgian Army until 2011
 * Croatian Army until 2009
 * Danish Army until 2011
 * Dutch Army until 2008
 * Dutch Army from 2008 to 2011
 * French Army until 2010
 * Polish Army until 2010
 * Romanian Army until 2010
 * Spanish Army until 2011
 * Swiss Army until 2008

noclador (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * re: NZ Army: there is no symbol for training. the only app-6a modifier denoting a training unit is a simple T used solely for rotary or fixed wing air units in a training role. As for the DJTFL - you mean that I should use a brigade symbol for it?? (I am confused by "but could you do it for a regiment?" - if it is a brigade symbol then we should use the brigade symbol for it.)
 * As for the GTA revert - ok. I tried to keep the articles always up to date; but you're right! such things need to go into the units history section. noclador (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point: as I am running out of active Armies and units to do OrBats of; I will begin to do historic units/Armies now (i.e. 1st Cavalry). For today I will try to do a graphic of the Italian and German Armored divisions of WWII - which if we also have the data on the Soviet and American Armored Division we could use to create and article comparing the various organizations of the armored divisions. (The British Armored Divisions already have their own article and graphics, but I think I will update them with the 1st Cav. Div. design) noclador (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * for today I updated the British Armoured Divisions graphics and created two graphics for the Italian Armored Divisions:




 * it must be noted though that in actual combat the two Italian divisions in Libya by 1942 had a different OrBat then the plan:
 * Ariete: one extra Tank Battalion for reconnaissance and one extra self-propelled Semovente 75/18 Group.
 * Littorio: one extra self-propelled Semovente 75/18 Group.
 * next up: US divisions, Soviet divisions and German divisions.


 * re: NZ Army: 'TRG' - will do that later today. Hat for the X will do that too. as for other Armies: Arab Legion! definitely that's very interesting. Jordan too. What Armies I tried to do and failed to do until now (for lack of sourced material: Bulgaria, Ukraine (really though one! not even people at the MOD here in town have a clue what the current real structure is!!), Malaysia, Oman, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and South Africa) especially Singapore, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait I would like to do. Do you have any data on those? cheers, noclador (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

US Armored Divisions


as for the rest: New Zealand update is finished; Singapore comes in the next days. noclador (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * New Zealand Army: did the CSS update - I used the new CSS symbol as per new revision of App-6a (not all Armies have yet adapted to it). As for DJTFHQ-L - I think it will be better to leave it as a brigade. It doesn't make sense to have a deployable HQ if it doesn't have at least brigade level capabilities. noclador (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

11th Air Force
Oh mercy, you're asking me to remember what I did last March :)  The 11th Air Force article was a mess and I recall I just about completely re-wrote it.   I recall I did that one.. Alaskan Air Command, Alaska Radar System and North Warning System all about the same time and sort of simultaneously..  Also did the Dew Line radar stations back then as well...   All sort of tied together.....  but getting back to the World War II part....


 * "...did you deliberately mean to leave all the naval battle of the Aleutians material in there from the public-domain sources? ....."  Trim/edit as you feel is necessary.   From what I recall I added the Dutch Harbor battle because it was the first combat engagement of the 11th AF...


 * "... Also, wanted to ask what your purpose was in adding all the airfield locations when you mentioned each combat group..."  legacy from the previous version more or less.


 * ".... Also, wanted to ask what your purpose was in adding all the airfield locations when you mentioned each combat group....."  good idea


 * "...They can probably go at the XI Fighter and Bomber Command articles, because the groups were operating under their command, and there's masses more of the Eleventh Air Force's tale to be told that is not in the main article (post-45)..."   Works for me.

Have fun.. I'm on vacation more or less until new years.. take care :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

7th Guards Airborne Division
7th Guards Airborne Division - I notice the article implies the division was a postwar formation based on a regiment that served in the 2WW. The division itself, however, was in the 2WW, for example, it is listed in the Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket order of battle as part of the 52nd Army. List of Soviet Union divisions 1917–1945 mentions "7th Guards Airborne Division — established at Ramenskoye Dec 1942. Fought at Demyansk, Voronezh, Korsun, on the Dnieper River, and at Targul Frumos and Budapest. With 4th Guards Army of the 3rd Ukrainian Front 5.45." I would guess this information can be added to the article, or is there an issue of unit traditions that indicate the postwar division has no link with the wartime division? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look in Feskov. Something doesn't smell right ... the postwar 7th GAD carries the name 'Cherkassy'.  Another name for the Korsun Pocket was the Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket -- at least one tradition has been (possibly) carried forward.
 * Hope you had a good holiday as well and enjoy, as the Germans say, the "slide" into the New Year. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Russian penchant for multiple unit formations and name changes make me want to howl. I think the threads of the unit histories are a bit more clear at this point. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the reorganization may have had its basis in deception operations. My opinion, after looking at Feskov's material, is that a lot of it was simple bureaucratic confusion.  The Soviet airborne forces didn't come out of the 2WW with a good reputation; I believe that is why the airborne divisions (which were really only regular guards rifle divisions in 1945) were retitled as guards rifle divisions.  There is a certain logic to this action.  Very soon postwar, it appears the high command rethought the whole airborne troops issue and cast them as a separate armed force.  So, as divisions were created again, they appear in some cases to have drawn division numbers that were used by the guards airborne divisions of the 2WW but did not necessarily carry all the traditions.  It at least looks like competing factions swung the reorganization one way and then were overruled by a different group.  I have no sources for this; it is just my opinion. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may enjoy this photograph of the statue mentioned in the article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Aleutian Islands Campaign (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Attu and Kodiak


 * Belgian Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Battle of the Marne


 * History of the United States Air Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Air Division


 * Shaibah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to British Military Hospital

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Soviet/Russian sub names
Hi, in response to a post of mine at WT:SHIP, somebody directed me to you; could you have a look at it and provide me with an answer? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you do a search for info about the K-114 Tula from 1991 to 2000, or pre-2000 for that matter? I cannot find sufficient info for the article, which I plan to take to to MilHist A-class status. Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

--Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 10:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

--Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 10:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

US WWII Graphics Control
If you would be so kind to check the graphics of the WWII divisions I made at:


 * 2x Air. Div.
 * 2x Inf. Div.
 * 1x Mtn. Div.

thanks, noclador (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

other WWII nations divisons
You might wanna chip in at this talk here: User talk:W. B. Wilson. cheers, noclador (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fulda Gap reference
Buckshot06, I removed the reference about the generals' discussion because it is very general in content and has only a bit to do with defense of the Fulda Gap itself. While the article is interesting, it was only somewhat relevant to the topic of the article; it is more of a "gee, what would old Wehrmacht generals have made of this situation?" type of approach to the greater question of how West Germany should have been defended had the Soviets moved west. There is some discussion of the Gap itself, but also a lot of chatter about the old German characterizations of the Soviet soldier, Soviet guerrilla operations, etc. For me personally, the biggest lesson of the article is how much the old Germans were still dominated by their (IMO) faulty views of their SWW Red Army enemy. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For a "GDP-style" discussion by a general, I think the comments here by General Odom are more on target, especially the comments about the use of tactical nukes. Odom isn't discussing the Fulda Gap in particular, but his overall tone is more realistic IMO for the postwar era. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read it. I suppose my view is biased because I would have been part of the GDP had it been exercised during a particular point in history.  The operations discussed in the generals' document are IMO fancier than would have been possible to implement had the other side come through the Gap, especially given the probable use of tactical nuclear weapons by both sides.  At the level of small units in the 11th ACR, we didn't expect to last much beyond a day or two once hostilities commenced.  As far as the reference being in the article, I have no issues in that regard; I just wanted to clarify why I had originally removed it. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ADC Book
I have it in a PDF. Email me at bwmoll3@comcast.net and I'll send it 2 u  Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

German formations
Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military_history, Buckshot06. I thought a consensus was reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military_history, but I must have been mistaken. Sigh. Cannot understand the inconsistency... Divisions should have separate articles, but Armies not? Hamish59 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point about the Army of the Niemen, Buckshot06. I will fix as soon as I get a chance.  I note a similar issue with 1st Panzer Army (Germany)  Hamish59 (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have removed (German Empire) from Army of the Niemen; have put back interwiki links for 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th armies, but have to check which are correct, not multi-lingual so difficult - is there a bot that will check? Not convinced by merging Army of the Niemen into 8th Army (German Empire) mostly because both existed simultaneously for at least some time.   Hamish59 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Dietrich comment
The comment by Dietrich about the 6th Panzer Army is amusing but not supported by the records. I have some data for the vehicle strength of the SS divisions for 15 March 1945: Not great strengths for divisions but a lot more than six. Note these figures represent operational vehicles, the "available" total, including vehicles under repair, was greater. Source is Thomas Jentz, Panzer Truppen, Vol. 2, p. 247, Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military History, 1996. The only vague point is that in March the divisions bounced between 6th PzArmee and Army Group South direct subordination. . . but Dietrich's comment still strikes me more as sarcasm than statement of fact. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1st SS Panzer Division: 32 tanks and 8 other AFV
 * 2nd SS Panzer Division: 31 tanks and 18 other AFV
 * 9th SS Panzer Division: 23 tanks and 24 other AFV
 * 12th SS Panzer Division: 19 tanks and 12 other AFV

Carrier Strike Group Seven
Hey, Buskshot06! I saw your message on my talk page. By and large, the editorial revision to Carrier Strike Group Seven are doing well, and I am with you. I want my articles to be comprehensive and detailed while also being streamline and uncluttered. It's a tough balance to achieve but we seem to be on track. If you have any questions, or if something seems weird, drop me a note on my talk page and I will try to clarify. I do concur that the two associated article will need reviewing because they should be reviewed in concert with the main Carrier Strike Group Seven article. If you have any questions or concern, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. Best of luck! Marcd30319 (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06, I think we should restore the sub-headings for 2011 Western Pacific deployment. This is something that I have been doing consistently for the other carrier strike group articles.  Also, if we have an excess of force composition charts, then drop the training one, but keep the 2011 Western Pacific deployment force chart.  Again, it's more consistent. Overall, I think we have doem a good job reducing and streamlining the article, but I would not want to cut muscle or bone in the process. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

121st Infantry
Honestly have to say that the policy seems wrong. The article on the 121st is about its existence as a regiment. That ended in the mid-1950s. The U.S. Army monumentally screwed up its unit lineages with the Pentomic and CARS nonsense. If a merge were to occur, I think the 2-121 article should become part of the 48th Brigade article (Confederate service -- really? -- wonder what the African American members of the brigade think about that tradition -- not to mention that the 48th Brigade didn't even exist until 108 years after the U.S. Civil War ended -- this is pure army bureaucratic fantasy at its worst). I thought about some of these issues as I wrote the 121st article and looked over articles like that of the 48th Brigade. Really, to keep things simpler for us Wikipedians, each regiment/brigade should have its own article -- the 1st Georgia in its various guises, the 121st, the 122nd, the 48th Division, and finally, the 48th Brigade. I'm probably out of step on this, but trying to keep up with the organization insanity of the U.S. lineage program is one hell of a lot of effort just to describe the army's attempts to maintain some kind of tradition. Briefly, my recommendation would be to merge the 2-121 into the 48th Brigade article since it is now part of that brigade for organizational purposes. More than you wanted to hear, I know. . . sorry! Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Western Front (World War II)
Hello, Buckshot06. You may wish to comment on a talk page note I posted about the format for commanders and leaders in the info box for the Western Front World War II article, link is: Talk:Western Front (World War II). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

2/121 infantry article merge
Hello Buckshot06, I've started a merge discussion at Talk:2nd Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment if you would like to participate. My suggestion is to merge with the 48th Brigade article. I note the 2/121 article was modified even today by other editors; it might be useful to be able to point to policy or other guidelines regarding articles about battalion level units. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

MILMOS#UNITNAME
G'Day Buckshot06, Thanks for the message regarding french corp names. I noticed that they were of two different styles, and changed them to the style in the wiki article on Corps. I'll go and change them all to the one style. MWadwell (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited National Revolutionary Army, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ludendorff and Chief of the General Staff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Buckshot06,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

12th Panzer Division
Hello Buckshot06. Can you check Armies of NATO's Central Front to see if it mentions anything about the history of the Bundeswehr's 12th Panzer Division? I noticed (on the DE wikipedia) the division started out as mechanised infantry and then later became an armoured outfit but I don't have anything that mentions the year the change occurred. Thanks and Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Keegan on Bundeswehr unit traditions
I recall you discussing this. I found Keegan's discussion informative: No attempt has been made to perpetuate or revive links with the regiments or corps of the past, as Seekt tried to do after 1921; though individual infantry and cavalry/armoured units stationed in appropriate districts nevertheless unofficially adopt the identities of vanished Imperial regiments, the adoption of these fictional ancestries is heavily disfavoured by the Defence ministry. (Page 247 of "World Armies") Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting bit about the invasion of Denmark
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cultours.dk%2Fpresse%2Fbesettelsen-af-danmark-den-9.-april-1940-var-ikke-fredelig

Interesting, it claims 203 German KIA during the invasion of Denmark. Found the link on the Danish Wiki. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently, this document is already used as a source in the en:wiki article on the invasion of Denmark and Norway ... didn't see that. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My recent overhaul of List of current Russian Navy ships
Hi, I was wondering if you could voice your opinion here. Another edit has expresses a disliking to my recent overhaul of the article and is threatening to revert the changes. I do not wish to indulge in any lengthy dispute so im calling for some outside support for a swift end to the matter. Im sure if you take a peek at previous revisions of the article you will find it was genuinely in need of an overhaul. Im asking for your opinion as you have first hand experience with my edits at Russian Air Force and would know me to be a decent editor. I also know you happen to take an interest in military related articles and have been involved at List of current Russian Navy ships before. Cheers and thank you for your time and effort. TalkWoe90i 01:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Raphaël Onana
Hello, What's a WP? what should I add? I'm not strong in wikipedia.... Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warinhari (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Royal Moroccan Air Force Order of Battle
Hi, on 29 January you added a copyvio template to List of Royal Moroccan Air Force Order of Battle but didn't list it. I thought I'd just remind you that articles tagged as copyvios should be reported to WP:Copyright problems and a reminder placed on the page of the editor involved per the template. Thanks.--Mrmatiko (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of United States Air Force bombardment groups assigned to Strategic Air Command
You recent post on my talk page has been replied to.--Reedmalloy (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited 2 Regiment, Army Air Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Air Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Panzer armies of Germany in World War II
No problem, Buckshot06. I will remove from main category. Hamish59 (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed Category:Field armies of Germany from all Panger Army / Group articles. Hamish59 (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Panzer Groups and PG Gudarian, yes, I hope to merge. I am / have been experimenting with how this should work / look Army of the Niemen /  Armee-Abteilung Lauenstein which seems to me to be a similar case.  Hamish59 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to rename 3rd Panzer Army (Germany) to 3rd Panzer Army but there is an existing article with the latter title. The system is refusing to rename.  Can you help?  Hamish59 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that, Buckshot06. Apparently, I have fallen foul of WP:NOTBROKEN

I forgot to update this page with the bit I put on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history: '':Same problem with 4th Panzer Army (Germany) and 4th Panzer Army... '' Hamish59 (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Bundeswehr in 1989
http://www.relikte.com/literatur.htm -- check out the e-books that are free for download. Looks like a very complete orbat. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Iron Cross
Thank you very much for that Buckshot06 Hamish59 (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited United States Transportation Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Affairs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

bombardment groups
Sounds like a good idea since the accurate content is retained and the focus of the articles will be tighter rather than simply list-like. Let me know where the proposal for deletion will be made. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New member
Hello. I am a new member of Wikipedia's registered user community.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocking
Hello Buckshot06,

I'd like to know if you can help me with a little problem I have.

I currently have an account on the French Wikipedia, and an administrator blocked me because the IP address of the computer I use was recorded to have done vandalisme on Wikipedia.

The only issue is that the computer I use is public; meaning that hundreds of people can use it in one day. For example, today (day the blocking occured) 63 people went on the computer before me, and when I take a look at the navigator's historics section, I see that the users before me have passed lots of time vandalizing Wikipedia (the French version).

The computer is located in a college...

Now, I cannot edit any pages on Wikipedia (the French version) for a month. Also, because of this IP address problem with the public computer, when I use my desktop or laptop, my account is still blocked...

Thank you for helping me, if you can, of course.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will try communicating with the named user because 1 month seems quite long...

--MaxAMSC (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

India Command
Please see Talk:India Command -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia outmaps Google Maps
List of cities in North Korea -- I got tired of looking at the empty map that Google shows for North Korea and made a Wiki location map. Take that, Google! Heh. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I later found the article Geography of North Korea, but even so, the map I made is the closest thing to a political map showing city locations that Wiki has at the moment. I may look at the other areas you mentioned, but I should finish my edits on the Bundeswehr articles first. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. When you recently edited Pacific Air Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Pacific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hello,

If you have some spare time, can you take a look at the userboxes I created? To view them, you can click here.

Read the top lines attentively...

Thank you.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * National Air Force of Angola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Tail number


 * United States Special Operations Command (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Blackwater

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right
I agree with your position in Shamkhor Massacre. Winterbliss (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

V Corps (United States)
Hi Buckshot, re. your edit from January 31st - next time you find a diagram that is erroneous, remove it and let me know about it! so I can update the next time I have some free days. In this specific case it seems that with the relocation to Wiesbaden Army Airfield after the return of the Corps from Afghanistan the units (which in the meantime had been under direct command of US Army Europe) were not returned under V Corps. The new organization is as follows However I believe this will change soon with the disbanding and relocation for further brigades of US Army Europe. so for now I am not going to update the diagram, but keep an eye out for news from the Pentgaon about what units will remain in Europe. cheers, noclador (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * V Corps will be disbanded: - so that is the reason it has no units anymore. noclador (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * actually all US Army Corps are just task force HQs that only get full operational control of units when assigned to operations under a Combatant Command. The Corps in the US command the divisions and brigades in a loose way that is overruled by Forces Command orders if necessary. At least that is how I understand the very labyrinth US Command Structure in CONUS. and Kiev is warming up really nicelz and fast :-) it is a joy to see spring here! :-) noclador (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. When you recently edited Vietnam People's Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kep (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Mother Armenia
Hi, you can't use a pov word like "heroes" into that article. Also the article is about "Mother Armenia", not that specific statue so the section title should be "Yerevan's Mother Armenia statue". The museum is in the base of the statue, not the statue itself, so "housed" rather than "was" is the best word to use. The hill is not "strategic" it has had no past strategic purpose. I'm sorry that my edit summary was too strong - I realise that your edit was done in good faith and that it had removed some of the even more pov stuff inserted by Lordsako. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 02:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hi Buckshot06, would appreciate if you could watch (and possibly) contribute to the discussion at Talk:Battle of the Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket, specifically the section headed "Propaganda". An editor thinks I am being NPOV by referring to the USSR and Nazi Germany as totalitarian. I think my case is fairly obvious, but ... Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Armenian Air Force
You're only argument is that the NY Times article states "allegedly". Since you are so adamant about including what you admit to be pure allegations, I suggest you edit the page to include a section called allegations. There you can include all of the allegations you can find with citations to reputable sources. You can include pages from the opinion section, or anything else that you can dig up. In the meantime, I stand strongly by my belief that Wikipedia is a professional website, and the information posted in a history section should consist of documented FACTS, not simply hearsay quoted by a journalist on the battlefield in a chaotic warzone.

I frankly find your methods disturbing. Your first attempt to smuggle back in the allegations which I removed were simply to remove the quotation marks around the allegations and reword the sentences. Then you stated you require an explanation, so I proceeded to explain that allegations do not belong in the History section. Your only response was a pathetic "well the article says it's only an allegation". So now you have my response. Since I'm sensing a strong bias on your part to attempts at misrepresenting allegations and hearsay in a manner which will deceive a clear majority of unsuspecting Wikipedia readers, as well as a bit of trigger-happiness with threats of blocking contributors who follow all guidelines set by Wikipedia but also happen to wish to remove an admittedly unverified, slanderous, defamatory allegation that you happen to be fond of for whatever personal bias you cannot get over, well I'm just curious to hear what excuse you will try to come up with now. Cheerio... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordsako (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can some type of protection be placed on Armenian Air Force to prevent these unhelpful removals by possible IP socks of Lordsako? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

VII Fighter Command
I went through all of the 20th Air Force organizations and gave the articles some substance. I put a #redirect in for VII Fighter Command. You'll have to remove that first before the move the article, renaming it is fine with me.

Take care :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Silesian Military District
It might need some copyediting by someone with knowledge of the subject, but I don't see anything that is in such poor english it requires re-translation--<font color="Blue">Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 22:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 48th Indian Infantry Brigade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Dhond


 * IX Tactical Air Command (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Stars and Stripes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"self published sources"
Hi Buckshot06, I ran into user:Fladrif recently. He is strictly enforcing Wiki guidelines on self-published sources ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources ). Talk:Battle_of_Kassel_%281945%29 indicates some of his work. While I understand how self published sources can at times be problematic, this is a type of single-mindedness that causes deletion of material without even bothering to see if the citation for the deleted material might not be, after all, correct. I tried to slow him down a bit, but judging from his contribs, this is all he does. I also prefer the best sources possible, but often they are difficult to access or expensive to obtain. A site like www.generals.dk is an invaluable resource and also seems to be well researched, even if it is "self-published". Note: Fladrif comments on "Axis Biographical Research" but also removes a reference to www.generals.dk, which is why I mentioned that site. Would like to know your views on this. Thanks and cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Ah yes, wishing you a good Easter. With luck, the Unicorns won't abuse the holiday by invading Tana Tuva. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * French Army Light Aviation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Officer, NCO, Étain, War in Somalia and British Expeditionary Force


 * 268th Indian Infantry Brigade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Punjab Regiment


 * BatDiv (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Pacific Fleet


 * Carrier Strike Group Seven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to War in Afghanistan


 * I Corps (Belgium) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Soest


 * Syrian Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to CBW


 * USS Enterprise (CVN-65) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Task Force 77

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Peer review and break
Buckshot06, I haven't been able to get to the peer review -- too much RL activity at the moment. I'll be more or less on break until the middle of next month or so. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 16th Cavalry Regiment (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Georgia


 * 2nd Armored Division (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to III Corps


 * Politics of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to MLC


 * Rally for Congolese Democracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Katanga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Buckshot06. The notice above is in relation to Sudanese Armed Forces, which you semi-protected and moved to a new title on April 12. While there was little concern expressed about the appropriateness of the page move (and the IP editor who raised the issue has been directed to raise the issue on the article's talk page if he remains concerned after several editors pointed out that on-the-spot research indicated your move was correct), it was very unclear what the "persistent" vandalism was that you referred to.  Only a handful of changes have been reverted for any reason over the last year, and the article appears to have been at its previous title for many years; I'd be hard-pressed to view a change that matches the infobox title to the article title as "vandalism", and that was the most recent reverted change. I am assuming the protection may have been an unintentional error on your part. With this in mind, I have removed the semi-protection.  Please let me know if I have missed something important here, and I will be happy for you or another administrator to reverse my change.   Best, Risker (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RQ-20 Puma
There have been recent developments of the RQ-20 Puma AE UAV, but there is no page on it here. Could you start it up? Use these links: AeroVironment-Puma AE and Defenseindustrydaily-RQ-20 Puma. Thanks. (America789 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia Stories Project
Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

CENTAG and NORTHAG structure articles
oops! you saw them already? I am not yet done... I am working through all my sources now to ascertain the French and British units! sources will come soon too... Date is: second half of 1989! all changes after 1.1.1990 are ignored. however some data is from a bit earlier (i.e. the French 1988) but the plan is to have a complete CENTAG and NORTHAG and LANDSOUTH and LANDJUT article by the end of the month. noclador (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * lol! I spent the last 18 16 hours figuring out what unit went when where for how long, and then checking up on the Northern Ireland tours, the 6 month tours to Cyprus (= keeping the old home base) vs. really moving to an overseas deployment for 2 years, etc. etc...
 * here are my sources:, , , , , just for the brits... for belgians, dutch, german, french, canadians, americans, I have others.
 * I will email you the basic source I use (a doc version of this ), to which I added the various national sources:

noclador (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NL:
 * BEL:
 * GER: de:Gliederung des Feldheeres (Bundeswehr, Heeresstruktur 4)
 * FR:, , , ,
 * USA:

Homer, AK
I changed Homer, Alaska back to "city". "Habitation legally defined as city" is horrible writing, and not used anywhere else on Wikipedia for a reason. The very next sentence gives the 5000-some population, allowing our readers to make their own judgements. Keep in mind, that this is Alaska, and in most of Alaska, a population of 5,000 makes it the primary center for its entire region. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  22:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. When you recently edited 20th Field Artillery Regiment (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AH-1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

2ATAF
started a new article: Second Allied Tactical Air Force. I think the basic structure is 90% correct - if we do not insist on putting the units under the Sector Operations Center under which they were mostly likely to be found... what is missing are: AD missile units of the Belgian and Dutch Air Forces and whatever AD missile units the Brits had. Will try to work that out later. cheers, noclador (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a little hiccup with the French forces... the corps of the French Army would not be placed under AFCENT or NORTHAG/CENTAG, they would come under SHAPE and the SACEUR would direct First Army (France) as to how to employ them until they reached the "area of operation" when finally the command authority would pass to NORTHAG or CENTAG... thoughts? do I need to add the French First Army to the two structure articles?? noclador (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

German formations
a few days back I moved all the Bundeswehr divisions from (Germany) to (Bundeswehr); I also changed Mechanized to Panzergrenadier; and did change the 12th Panzer to 12th Armoured, as to my surprise all the other Panzer divisions were (and are still) listed as xx Armoured divisions. (gonna change them all to Panzer now). Afterwards I moved all remaining Wehrmacht divisions from (Germany) to (Wehrmacht). I did not check for the Empire or NVA divisions... but all the Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr divisions are now with the correct designation at the end. noclador (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * clear and agreed :-) I am now also doing the disambiguation pages for the 6 Pz Div. that existed in both (1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12) and then going through all the articles to make sure they link to the right one. noclador (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * re. NATO: Where to move the French troops?? into something like 1st French Army 1989??? or split it into their respective corps articles??? as for 12th Guided Weapons Group - it was disbanded in 1988; there is a great article about the AD units of the Dutch military at the Dutch wiki: nl:Groepen Geleide Wapens. noclador (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

British Army December 1989

 * 1) moved NORTHAG War Time Structure to NORTHAG War Time Structure in 1989
 * 2) began Order of battle of the French Army in 1989 (just saw you saw that one already)
 * 3) will do the article Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force soon
 * 4) As you mentioned that you are very interested in the British military and as I do not know where else to post it; below is the units of the British Army that were not assigned to BAOR (every single unit assigned to BAOR - active or Territorial Army, based in the UK or in Germany is listed at the NORTHAG article - below are just these few units not assigned to/planned to go to BAOR). I hope you can help find a way where to post it. noclador (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to United Kingdom Land Forces, December 1989, at Land Command. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ok. I added the units that were part of UK Field Army, but would move to BAOR in case of war (a lot of units!) because without them the peacetime structure of UK Field Army would not be complete (same done at Northern Ireland HQ list). Order of battle of the French Army comes later tonight. Below are the units of the British Army in December 1989 that were neither in Germany nor the UK:


 * British Forces Gibraltar
 * 3rd Btn,Royal Green Jackets
 * Royal Gibraltar Regiment (Reserve)
 * British Forces Cyprus
 * 2nd Btn, Coldstream Guards
 * British Forces South Atlantic Islands
 * 1st Btn, Green Howards (not the whole battalion) October 1989 to April 1990 - 6 month roulement
 * Belize
 * 1st Battalion, Welsh Guards, April to October 1989, next battalion would be there for a 6 month roulement October 1989 to April 1990, but I do not know which one that was
 * British Forces Overseas Hong Kong
 * 48th Gurkha Infantry Brigade
 * 2nd Btn, 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles
 * 1st Btn, 6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles
 * 1st Btn, 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles
 * 1st Btn, Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment
 * Royal Hong Kong Regiment (reserve)
 * British Military Garrison Brunei
 * 1st Btn, 10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles

Cudjoe Key Air Force Station
I've actually been to this place. Did some surveys in the Florida Keys in the early 1990s. Heard it was damaged during Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but remains open.

N 24 40' 41" W 81 30' 26"

Basically, the site teathers large baloons and is used for drug interdiction of aircraft entering United States airspece unlawfully. Operated by NORAD/ACC Through First Air Force

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3507

Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Luftwaffe
please have a look at: Talk:History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) and at: Talk:Luftwaffe. thanks, noclador (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * informed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. noclador (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Convoy Faith
Hi, I think that I've now - somewhat belatedly - addressed your comments at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Convoy Faith. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Serbia-related discussion at WP:AE
At WPAE an editor has cited this thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as settling down the dispute about this article. Since you've participated as an admin there, perhaps you feel like commenting in the AE discussion. If you agree that the Territory of the Military Commander dispute is now settled, perhaps the AE could be refocused on the issues that remain. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

aaargh
can you at least let me finish an article before you trash the work? Which is NOT cool!!! noclador (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * !!! oops!!! sorry!! just saw you merged the info!! Taking my back my line above!! merge is fine!!
 * COMLANDJUT & COMLANDZEALAND are coming too tonight or tomorrow! noclador (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just adding the Danish Air units when the article disappeared! :-) Ok, will add all the info to BALTAP - but that will be a long article, because unlike all other German Home Defence units (which remained under national command) the ones in Schleswig Holstein all came under LANDJUT - and that's a LOT of units!! so I will add now all to the one article, and you then please consider if we need to split LANDJUT out. cheers! noclador (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have you checked out SHAPE lately? That's how long we can go, and longer... Really, I'm sorry I twizled you in the middle of your work, but I didn't know you were still editing, and I knew because I'd translated the German that we had the BALTAP article. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

9th Inf:
google: "9th Infantry division" NATO Denmark or follow this link: the problem is I do not remember which Janes edition it was (but the year was 1990) in which Danish Chief of Defence Jørgen Lyng discussed the 9th Inf. Div. mission to Norway (which the 9th only got in 1988). I NEVER add anything of which I am not 100% sure!! the problem is that often I can't find the sources anymore as I read it all years back when I worked at the Italian Army and spend my days going through all the old books, files, etc. they had! noclador (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will readd the 3. Panzer now: because as you seem to know German you can read it to in Die Bundeswehr 1989 by O.W. Dragoner part 2.1: "3. Panzerdivision ANMERKUNG: Die 3. Panzerdivision untersteht im Verteidigungsfall dem 1e Legerkorps der niederländischen Streitkräfte mit dem Hauptquartier in Apeldoorn (NL)." noclador (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

4th Inf Combat Aviation Brigade
I do not make errors. Don't trust the outdated material that lingers at global security - it is mostly gibberish and garbage.


 * 1) in 2009 two HBCT plus the divisional HQ of 4th Inf. moved to Fort Carson to make room for brigades coming back from Germany
 * 2) as Butts Army Air Field at Fort Carson is not capable to house a CAB the CAB of 4th Inf. did not move to Fort Carson, but moved in September 2011 to Fort Bliss and was reflagged as CAB 1st Armored Division (the original CAB 1st Armored CAB moved from Germany to Fort Riley in 2006 and reflagged as CAB 1st Infantry Division)
 * 3) the US Army then decided (Grow the Army) to raise two more CABs: the 16th Combat Aviation Brigade (United States) starting in 2009 and a new CAB for the 4th Inf. starting in 2013
 * 4) now the US Army Corps of Engineers is building the needed facilities at the Butts Army Airfield to house a CAB there
 * 5) and beginning in 2013 the CAB 4th Inf Div. will be raised! with an aim to be fully staffed and operational by 2015

so my diagram is 100% correct. The sources I am working off are a more then a dozen! and the only hiccup is that the CAB 4th Inf moved to Fort Bliss a year later then anticipated as they were sent for 12 months to Afghanistan from May 2010 to May 2011 (so the move in September 2010 was postponed by a year). As soon as the new CAB is activated in 2013 and it's first units assigned/raised I will update the diagram. But as it is currently 100% correct, like all other diagrams I do, no changes are needed for now. and thanks for the compliment. noclador (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

27th Guards Rifle Division
Re 27th Guards Rifle Division and 27th Guards Motor Rifle Division, somehow the actual content has got lost. Just thought I'd let you know. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

stop vandelism
please stop deleting lineage and honors information! its disrespectful! if you dont understand American military unit information, then leav it alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.81.38 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group articles - Assigned unit section - serial text format v. bullet text format
Buckshot06, FYI.

NickD, there has been a misunderstanding about the listing of units (i.e., carrier, cruisers, destroyers, air wing) assigned to a specific U.S. Navy carrier strike group. You may not be aware, but a previous discussion on listing this information within a separate section via a bulleted format for enhanced readability and to avoid serial linking problems, and a consensus was reached by all interested stakeholders. I have looked the archived peer review for Carrier Strike Group Seven, and I do not see any recommendations to list the assigned units in a serial fashion in the opening paragraphs as opposed to the previously-agreed bulleted format in a separate section. It has been suggested that you are the source of this format change. Can you clarify this situation? Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Convoy Faith
Ping! Can you please let me know if I've addressed your comments at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Convoy Faith? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ping again. I tweaked the lead to take your comments into account a few days ago. How does it look now? As always, if you don't think that the article is up to standard, that's OK. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand


The article Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * More than 5 years old and independent refs limit to two sentences. A number bold political claims bordering on attacks without close referencing. Nothing obvious in google.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Centre for Strategic Studies New Zealand until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Kivu
Of course I know it's a new phase in a long conflict, you don't know my reading experience and background, my idea is that merging should not be done without discussion ! --Reader1987 (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

11rh Air Force
Eleventh Air Force: activated 13 June 1946 at Olmstead Field, Middletown, PA, and assigned to ADC. Inactivated 1 July 1948. Was Assigned to Air Defense Command designated for defense of PA, Western MD, VA WV KY OH IN southern Michigan.

Ref: A Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization 1946 - 1980, by Lloyd H. Cornett and Mildred W. Johnson, Office of History, Aerospace Defense Center, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado

It has no relationship to the current or previous 11th Air Force.

Ref: Maurer, Maurer (1983). Air Force Combat Units Of World War II. Maxwell AFB, AL: Office of Air Force History

Could not find any records in the AFHRA actually one way or another in that regard, or any record of the command's actual activation or inactivation. It may have been an administrative organization at ADC only.

http://airforcehistoryindex.org/search.php?q=OLMSTEAD&c=u&h=25&F=1%2F1%2F1945&L=

I edited Olmstead's page and removed the not equipped or manned statement.

Regards, Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

1952 Inter-Camp P.O.W. Olympics Article
Buckshot06,

Article: 1952 Inter-Camp P.O.W. Olympics.

Why did you change the above article into a redirect? I made an effort to improve it, with a reliable source. Couldn't you have done what you did with the article prior to me buying the book to improve the article? I would understand if there were other inter-camp POW olympics but I've seen other articles with not 2 lines and you think this was ridiculous for having around 5 lines and sourced properly and proper headings, etc? I am disappointed in your judgement. Adamdaley (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know every aspect of Military conflicts, etc over the centuries, I do try and maintain my knowledge over the last 200 hundred years. During High School, my main interest was History, this is where I got my interest in World War II and Z Special Unit while over the last 2 years, I've become interested in the Cold War (especially with Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher). Yes ... I have been asked by several users who have done articles on the American Civil War to take the time to read and asses them (even taken the time to get Frederick H. Dyer's 1959 copy of Compendiums). Due to my limited budget, I am unable to get alot of books and I am willing to go back as far as the beginning of the Early Modern period of assessing the article's. Adamdaley (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The anon part was in error, as nearly identical text was added to another article. For POV, see talk. --Magabund (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

problem with lifted text?
Buckshot06, while reading about early Chinese communist forces, I noticed some distinct text similarities (and practically, copied text in some areas) in Eighth Route Army -- as compared to what can be found at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181256/Eighth-Route-Army. Could become a source of problems at some point. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I took the article back to a six year old version. The Britannica article showed a history of last being edited in August 2006, so I reverted this project's version to a point older than that.  It looks like a banned user called Lop.Dong introduced the Britannica text in December 2006. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

SAAF Border War
Any assistance in filling in the gaps in this table would be most appreciated! Farawayman (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:United States Navy ship squadrons


A tag has been placed on Category:United States Navy ship squadrons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Responded again, Sadads (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

HMS
Manxruler (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's been over 60 hours, hasn't it? If the move is to happen now, then we should move all of them. Manxruler (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the announcing. Manxruler (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got a bit of time before work, so I'll start with Category:Gotland class submarines. Manxruler (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you deal with HMS Ulla Fersen (1789)? Manxruler (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And HMS Gotland? Manxruler (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw: HMS Saga is another example of Swedish and British naval ships having the same name. How to fix that page? Manxruler (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And so is HMS Thule and HMS Thor. And this wasn't going to create problems? Manxruler (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that would work. Creating stubs is something I've never done, but I could easily do so, relying on Miramar Ship Index for basic info. Sure, why not. Could you fix HMS Ulla Fersen (1789)? I can't move it myself. Manxruler (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll translate. Manxruler (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of Ulla Fersen. Manxruler (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi. Sorry for manually archiving those unsigned threads, I did it because the bot archives only dated threads, and autosign bot was available as I understand from sometime in 2008, so those unsigned posts from 2006 will probably remain at talk forever. But I don't mind unarchiving, if those discussions could be reactivated, or are required for any other purpose. I just wanted to keep the talk page tidy and up to date. Regards, Grand  master  06:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would love to help with Armée Nationale Congolaise, but unfortunately I have very limited knowledge about that region. I mostly edit the South Caucasus related articles. Grand  master  07:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are sources, but they are in Russian. This is a book by a Russian military expert and journalist:, and there's this website with detailed listing of the Russian military still remaining in the region:  Grand  master  07:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will let you know if I find something interesting. As far as I remember, the division in Nakhichevan was evacuated, and its weaponry was transfered to the Azerbaijani army. Everything was very peaceful, by agreement between the Azerbaijani authorities and the Russian leadership. But of course some sourced info is better than personal recollections. Grand  master  19:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In the late 1980s the commander of the 75th Motor Rifle Division was Lev Rokhlin. Around that time the division was transfered from the Soviet army to the Soviet Border Troops of the KGB USSR. Later it was dissolved, and its property and arms were handed over to the Azerbaijani army. Grand master  20:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Delhi class frigate, Mumbai
Need to know exactly what article it is to be used in and the article already needs to have been created Cuprum17 (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * never mind...looks like Hohum has a solution that will work...I tried. Cuprum17 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Destroyer Class
with regard to this edit. The class of the destroer was changed by IP and. I am not sure which one is correct, but wanted to inform you so that you can decide accordingly-- D<font color="#DA500B">Big X<font color="#10AD00">ray  06:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your award of the red army distinction, comrade! It is a great honour and will inspire me to create more anti-imperialist articles in future ;-) Secretlondon (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

LARABOYZ
Not sure who I should alert about this, so I picked a random established editor. I wanted to bring to your attention LARABOYZ, an article about an incredibly obscure Moroccan rap group that when I found it was plastered with what a appeared to be a press release or advert in Arabic (and the Talk page still is). Karin Anker (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just trying to be a somewhat productive member of Wikipedia! You're awesome and I envy you for living in such an absurdly beautiful place. Greetings from the infinitely more mundane Amsterdam. Karin Anker (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Go for it & thanks! Is this something any editor can do when a similar page is found? And hell yes I would swap. I love cities but I have a far bigger weak spot for nature. Karin Anker (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Commander, Naval Surface Forces Pacific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Vallejo and Long Beach


 * French Army Light Aviation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to First Army and Second Army


 * 3rd Guards Spetsnaz Brigade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Supreme Commander


 * Army Wounded Warrior Program (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to War in Afghanistan


 * Expeditionary Strike Group Three (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Long Beach


 * Military government (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Hague Conventions


 * Military of Burkina Faso (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Upper Volta


 * USS Vulcan (AR-5) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Earle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Swedish Navy move needed
Hi Buckshot. Having just created those articles we were talking about earlier, I need a move done. It turns out that there was only one HMSwMS Saga, so there's no need for the dab at HSWMS Saga (1877). That also solves the whole issue with a British ship mentioned on that page. The other ships with the same names as RN ships have been dealt with. Manxruler (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

USCGC Bitt (WYTL-65613)
Buckshot, you want to see something funny? Look as this. I now see how the system works...er, doesn't work. I now see why you said to just move work directly to the mainspace. While the reasons pointed out by AfC are probably valid, no one would have questioned my moving the article over from my sandbox to mainspace and in fact I can point out dozens of articles that exist in mainspace that use a single source that is related to the article. My next question is: what to do about this particluar article? I plan to eventually finish the rest of the WYTL cutter articles and this one is stuck in limbo. Suggestions? Cuprum17 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Department of Defense Information Technology Security Certification and Accreditation Process
Hi, Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You recently PRODded the DITSCAP article. Seems like a reasonable enough move since DITSCAP on its own is fairly obscure. However, the article content seems to focus more on the wider ecosystem, and in particular on DIACAP, which I think passes the GNG by a reasonable margin. So, I removed the PROD and was going to suggest a move to a better title.
 * However, I then found we have a totally separate article on DIACAP with an equally unwieldy name, so it's a bit of a mess.
 * So, your PROD tag has been restored, but is there anything else you think needs to be done to clean up the mess? Perhaps add a couple of sentences of DITSCAP content into the article on its successor?

Maritime domain awareness
Hello Buckshot06. The prod was removed with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maritime_domain_awareness&diff=500391467&oldid=497609008. Your version with the prod attached is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maritime_domain_awareness&oldid=497609008. I was doing this in a response to a request at WP:REFUND. This revision has the request at the end. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unit history discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States). RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources for small arms and trucks
Hi Buckshot, Are there any easy-to-use and central references on the small arms and unprotected vehicles used by the various national armies? I've deleted the lists of both from the Malaysian and Djiboutian Army articles as the Military Balance doesn't provide this, and what was in both articles was entirely uncited and full of dodgy-looking claims. In my experience, lists of small arms are a favourite target for vandals, and lots of countries are identified as operating all kinds of guns as a result. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * International trade in small arms is a lot harder to track anyway so sources simply aren't as good. (Needless to say, SIPRI doesn't offer much help either). Similarly for domestic production; very few states can make battleships, but making AK-47 clones is well within the reach of many state and non-state actors. So if we can't get good sources on what they've imported or on what they've made domestically, maybe it's time to reach for the axe... bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, unless there is a good source for some reason, it's just things like Jane's Infantry Weapons. There's not central reference on soft-skins that I've ever found -- better to go for the axe.. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you both. I'll keep removing these categories if they're unsourced. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. When you recently edited 2nd Guards Tank Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikolai Makarov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:HuHu22
G'day Buckshot06. I wonder if, given your involvement in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article title discussion, you might have a look at the edit behavior of this user. Could you advise what the best approach would be to deal with this? Does it qualify as 3RR? Your advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06, the user, is most definitely the sockpuppet of , a user with a similar name who was indef blocked for the same exact SPA POV warring on the same exact articles. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks that way. Thanks for the intervention Buckshot06. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

RAF Nicosia
Hi Buckshot, No offence intended, but I've struck one of your merge votes at Talk:Nicosia International Airport. By voting twice, you gave the section the appearance of three merge votes when only two people had voted that way (I'm sure this wasn't your intention). Regards, Ranger Steve   Talk  13:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured it was probably something like that. I couldn't imagine it was deliberate! Ranger Steve   Talk  20:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Might be of interest
I'm not sure if this is the same job being re-advertised, or a new position, but the Wikimedia Foundation is advertising for someone to work with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University: Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:HuHu22
G'day Buckshot06. Sorry to bother you with this again, but User:HuHu22 has reappeared at the end of their block and promptly is back to their previous game of disparaging reliable sources as 'communist'[|here]. I don't want to load you up with this Balkans stuff, but seeing as you have dipped your oar in before, could you have another look? I'm seeing no interest in compliance with WP policies, just POV-warrioring (ie they say when I produce refs saying Mihailovic collaborated with the Axis, User:HuHu22 will say they are 'communist'. Your advice would be appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

45th Infantry Division ACR
Hello. Another editor has asked if you are satisfied with my responses on WikiProject Military history/Assessment/45th Infantry Division (United States). Please let me know if you have any additional comments on the page. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Military Intelligence Service (United States):
Hello.Please Read This Article About the Military Intelligence Service(see talk page Talk:Military Intelligence Service (United State)). I'm not allowed to publish this article.you can use these sources(Especially in Okinawa).Thank you very much.

Negative evaluation

the MISLS participated in the battle of Okinawa. Some nisei soldier used violence to torture Okinawan civilians. Thereafter these civilians were handed over to a U.S. Lieutenant. Some civilians were shot. It happened in June 24, 1945. during the occupation of Japan, some Nisei soldiers abusing prisoners and even civilians. A Japan Journalist think nisei are the worst kind of G.I.s.

during the occupation of Japan, through the formation of such organizations as the Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD), MIS linguists played an important role in News blackout. Between 1945 and 1949, the CCD nisei soldiers was responsible for reviewing all Japanese publications. The CCD eventually banned a total of 31 topics from all forms of media.journalists were banned from reporting the G.I.s Crime. . 「The editor of the magazine “Emancipation News” was sentenced to− five years of hard labor(Braw1991,chapter7)」 Children's books are no exception.

59.55.145.167 (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

search.digitalreasoning.com as an external link
The link you added to Nanjing Military Region no longer works. Do you recall what was on the page that you linked? A press release, perhaps? --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Some damages in one of your edit
Hi,

When reading about USS De Wert, I founded a lot of spaces inserted between each letter of few words. I fixed that and detected that the change inserting these words was from you : 01:38, 3 July 2012 (diff | hist). . (+1,347)‎ . . USS De Wert (FFG-45) ‎ (part 1)

Don't know how this happened and after few review of your other changes, I trust this was an accident.

Be carefull in your next edits and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia,

Heracles31 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

SAAF History
Comments on splitting / removing History section from the SAAF page would be appreciated. Discussion here. Farawayman (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)