User talk:Eurocopter/Archive 1

Russian Air Force
Thanks for your contributions to the Rus AF article. Are your recent changes still from the AW&ST sourcebook or are they from somewhere elset? If so, could you indicate where they came from? Cheers Buckshot06 18:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for indicating that, thats good. Next time you do it would you mind adding a quick footnote? Something along the lines of 'source www.scramble.nl database accessed X March 2007'? Good for sourcing things. Best regards Buckshot06 10:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask an administrator - or coordinator - maybe User:Kirill Lokshin - at the WPMILHIST page about the usernames. Sources for the number of equipment types in service - best to go slowly through Russian language sources (which I can't do, by the way, my Russian is very limited) and not just Pravda and RIA-Novosti, but reliable military journalists like Aleksandr Golts & sources like NVO. Please note there is a separate page for the list of Russian military ground forces equipment, separate from the main Russian Ground Forces page. Buckshot06 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Re the Kaliningrad entry: No, you should not. I deleted that, as the the air element that was merged into the Air Forces was the Air Defence Force (PVO) not the Naval Aviation. Check the Baltic Fleet entry, where you'll see hopefully more up to date info that I put in earlier. Also you confused 150 ARZ, an aircraft repair facility, with a heavy bomber regiment. Russian newspaper sources (Kommersant-Vlast) as of 2005 report no heavy bomber elements in the KOR. Buckshot06 08:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the recent PLAAF edits look solid. The string of recent edits by one person were mostly adding descriptive detail which as far as I can tell is right. Buckshot06 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the wikiwings!! Reverted your edit on the 11 VA VVSiPVO having Tu95s; these are only with the 37th Air Army. Buckshot06 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Tigre. Take a look at Vad777's site - do a googlesearch for Vad777 and check out the part of his site that deals with the VVS. Otherwise I rely on the IISS Military Balance. Buckshot06 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

vandalism
hello, my user name is Eurocopter tigre and you sent me a lot of vandalism warnings.I really didn't delete any of that things from that articles. I think somebody is using my user name or my IP to delete things from that articles. Is that posible? If yes, please tell me how can I fix this problem. Thank you, Eurocopter tigre

Eurocopter tigre 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * thats possible, so try not to use cyber cafe's computers or other library pc's , several CVUs believe that you are the vandal yourself . Ammar 09:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: help
I have no idea what's going on there, frankly; I suspect it's just someone sending warnings to the wrong person by mistake. In any case, so long as you're not actually vandalizing anything, you should have nothing to worry about. Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Dear Eurocopter tigre,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.  Daniel Bryant  22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dorin Danila
Thanks for the explanation; I thought it was vandalism. I think there is a better way to delete or rename a page, especially since you're the one who created it. But I'm not sure how. I'm sure it's explained in the Help sections. Ward3001 16:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi and welcome to Wikipedia!

First of all, your contributions to the Romanian Air Force-related articles are worth mentioning - as a RoAF student, your knowledge about aviation and especially the Romanian aviation is most welcome.

Second of all, I would like to kindly point out some minor style things:
 * please do not forget to use the diacritics for the Romanian names or places (even if you don't have a Romanian keyboard or a Romanian keyboard mapping, you can use the characters in the wikitable under the "Save Page" button when editing)
 * please avoid overlinking some terms (linking it once is enough, have also a look here: Manual of Style (links)). Also avoid linking the years or months separately (see also Manual of Style (dates and numbers)).
 * please do not use footnotes for generic sites; usually the footnotes point to details or specific references, not to the index pages of websites (e.g. use the footnote if you can provide the exact page for the reference). Have a look here: Citing sources, Citing sources/example_style and External links.
 * and do not forget to use boldface for the first appearance of the title (Manual of Style).

Thanks and keep up the good work! Regards, Mentatus 20:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

IAR
Hi, I'll have a look at both articles. Mentatus
 * Done. Mentatus 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 20:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

revert on George W. Bush
Clarity requires precise language. Your revert is less precise, possibly reflecting your political views. You will see that "military action" redirects to "war". Fremte 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

see edit to the above re George W. Bush
Also note that the additonal phrase that contained 'military action' or 'war' was added originally by me and then altered without consensus by others. Perhaps it is best for I to remove the original addition that started this. Best regards. Fremte 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslims in Romania
"Romania also has historically significant Muslim minority numbering 230,000 and nearly 1% of the population, concentrated in Dobrogea, who are mostly of Turkish ethnicity and number 67,500 people."

The phrase above is incorrect on multiple counts. For one thing, if the Muslims really number 230,000, they're more than 1% of the population. For another, how can they be of mostly Turkish ethnicity, when the Turks themselves number only several tens of thousands? Also, the reference given is extremely vague and unreliable, giving estimates for a Muslim population between 55,000 and 300,000. A much more reliable source, the 2002 census, gives a Turkish population of 32,956, a Tatar population of 24,127 and a Muslim population of 67,566. Finally, even somebody who knows nothing about Romania will notice the phrase makes no sense. It begins by giving one estimate for the Muslim minority, and finishes by offering a totally different number. Its present outlook is probably the result of an idiotic edit, so I have changed it to say:

"Romania also has a historically significant Muslim minority, concentrated in Dobrogea, who are mostly of Turkish ethnicity and number 67,500 people"

However, my edit was apparently automatically reverted by you. I'm not very knowledgeable about Wikipedia. Is the page partially protected or what? As you can see, my changes were quite reasonable and backed by a solid reference (the 2002 Romanian census). Bogmih 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

TAROM
Regarding my edit on TAROM, I would kindly like to ask You to be more deliberate before categorising any important information as 'vandalism'.

I guess it is known that especially after the Prague Spring, Romania opposed more and more to Soviet influences; as a consequence TAROM itself has oriented to Western productions, and made contracts for the BAC 1-11 (that was even produced in Romania under license) and the Boeing 707. In the early 70s, there was a rumor among TAROM pilots that the company intended to buy several Vickers VC10 aircraft, however this was stopped by the Soviets, and they had to acquire much less reliable IL-62 planes instead.

Recently, I found the confirmation about TAROM's intention to buy the VC10 (in the book Silent, Swift, Superb: the VC10 by Henderson/Scott). The type designation for TAROM would have been 'Type 1162' (BOAC model being Type 1152). Other customers who remained in the 'planning' phase were Aerolineas Argentinas (Type 1125), CSA(!) (type 1158), Nigeria(1161), CAAC-China (1163).

Given the special place occupied by the VC10 among its contemporary aircraft, I consider this information particularly important to mention in the article.

Yrtgm 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Military Expenditures
I didn't move the EU down to the separate table; that was Autocracy. I was merely upholding that move, because it makes sense. The EU is not a country, it's a supranational organization, and belongs in the bottom table, not the list of countries. I'll leave it for now, if you'd like to discuss the matter. Parsecboy 12:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was moved a couple days ago, before our discussion even started, let alone the RfC. I think it can (and should) be moved to a different table, because the EU is not a country. That's not really the aspect of the RfC anyways. I don't see what your problem with leaving it in the supranational organizations table is, anyways. I understand that you're pro-European Union, but you must accept simple logic on the matter. Is the EU currently it's own state? Unquestionably no. Therefore, it does not belong on the list of expenditures by country. Also, if you'd like to respond here, to maintain continuity in the thread, go right ahead, I'll see it. Parsecboy 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The EU is listed there since June 2006, you can't just come and move it (as Autocracy did) or remove it. I also don't agree to put the EU in the same section with NATO because there are two very different things; you can't just put a state union in the same section with a military alliance. Should I remind you that not all of the EU countries are NATO members,ex: Austria, Sweden,Finland,Ireland, so listing the EU in the Chart by Nation is a good statistic. Eurocopter tigre 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how long a piece of information has been there if it's erroneously placed. You don't own this article, and neither do I. We both have equal right to edit as we see fit. I reiterate: the EU is not currently a state. It might be an embryonic country, but it is not yet a country. Here, let's make a compromise: if you insist on keeping the EU in the "country" table, and not the supranational one, then I insist on removing the 27 member states from that table, as they apparently don't exist as sovereign nations anymore. Parsecboy 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said that the EU member states are not sovereign anymore. I can't agree with the removal of the EU 27 state members because they represent a major statistical fact (together with the EU). An Encyclopedia does not only content basic informations, it also content statistical and estimated facts. You can't say the EU it's erroneously placed there until the dispute is over, with a final decision saying that you are correct. I agree that the EU is not a state at the moment, that's why it is not ranked in the Chart by Nation section (see the bar near EU). Eurocopter tigre 16:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can say that the EU is erroneously placed in the "countries" table, because the EU is currently not a country. There's no dispute that the EU is not a country. Let me say this again: The article's name is "List of Countries by Military Expenditures". EU =/= Country. The issue with listing both the EU and the member states in the same table is that it misrepresents the military budget of the European nations. Parsecboy 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I repeat - the EU is not a country, that's way is not ranked. I don't understand why do you want so much to remove it as it represents a interesting statistical fact (tipical for an encyclopedia). The EU has also lots of a country characteristics (anthem, constitution, etc). Tell me, why the EU is listed in the List of countries by population, without any similar discussions on the talk page?? Eurocopter tigre 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with leaving it in that table is that it implies that it is a country, not the supranational organization that it is. I don't know why there isn't a similar discussion on that other article, but it's generally bad practice to use one wikipedia page as justification or as a source on another. Let me repeat my position, because you apparently misunderstand me. I do not want to remove the EU from the page, just shift it from the list of countries to the list of supranational organizations. I don't think you've told me yet what your objection to that is. What's the problem with it? Parsecboy 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with it is that the article it's more interesting with the EU located there. If you put it at the bottom of the page it wouldn't have a major statistical importance. I repeat that I don't think that putting the EU in the Chart by Nation, Italic texted and unranked implies that EU is a country..........Eurocopter tigre 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it doesn't matter what's interesting to you, or to me. Just the facts matter, and the simple fact remains that the EU is not a country, but is in fact, a supranational organization, and thus should be placed in that table. It would have the same exact statistical importance wherever it is placed in the article. Besides that, it's not statistical importance that dictates where an entry is listed, it's how it's classified. You don't just put something somewhere because you think it's important, you must use set criteria to do so. I notice that you're a new Wikipedian; to be an effective editor, you must check your POV at the door, and try to be as neutral as possible. Parsecboy 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Being neutral doesn't mean that I shouldn't support my opinions. If my opinion is completely different from your's, also doesn't mean that I am not an effective editor. I'm really sick of this discussion, so lets end it here. We shall see other opinions and how the dispute will be resolved on the article's talk page. Best regards,Eurocopter tigre 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: list of countries by military expenditures
Don't worry, the article will stay exactly as the last revision (21:33, 4 April 2007) until the final decision is taken. And I think that the EU is going to stay in the list, in the end. --giandrea 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

re: EU
What, on God's green Earth, are you talking about? I made no comments in regards to Daniel Cheswick; I cannot control what he says, and I will not censor the comments of others if they offend other users. I am not "totally anti-EU", I just don't agree that it is a nation or a state. You should make sure you read comments completely before you make judgements. I am indeed a nice and social person. Parsecboy 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't any collaboration. I'm not his friend, or in any way related to him. If you check his usertalk page, I have made no comments there. Like I said above, I will not delete other users comments unless they are vandalism. I likewise will not respond to users' comments that I don't feel merit a response. Parsecboy 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on List of countries and outlying territories by total area EU inclusion
You are welcome to leave a comment on the following Request for Comment (RfC): Summary: There is a dispute about whether the European Union should be included in this list. Its area equals the sum of its member countries. We are discussing if it should be included in the list or not.
 * Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by area

Thank you, -- giandrea   17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Army
Regarding the Graphic of the Structure of the Romanian Land Forces- I did a provisional Graphic, based on the information available on Wikipedia and the official homepage of the Romanian Land Forces: Graphic I posted it into the Romanian Land Forces article. But as the information at this time is insufficient regarding the location of most units and also because I haven’t found any information about which units compromise the Brigades, I will be very happy if you or someone else would share the missing information with me, so that I can finish the graphic soon. In the meantime: Thanks for your help, best regards noclador 10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding "divizion": I wondered myself why this unit designation is used for something that I would call a Regiment... in the graphic I used the Regiment symbol, as I assume this is the closest thing that comes to this kind of unit. But I#m sure NATO will quickly dispatch this unit designation, as it is confusing. I suggest we translate "divizion" as Rgt. as i.e. the 206th Artillery is of regiment strength. noclador 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing: Does the 6th Mixed Anti-Aircraft Artillery Operational Brigade "Râmnic" in Brăila really exist? I based my first graphic on the following diagram from the official homepage of the Romanian Land Forces and there is no Anti Aircraft Brigade under the 1st Terrestial Command, but a unit called RRAA, which in my opinion is a Anti Aircraft Regiment. So- i'm would like to have your confirmation regarding the 6th Anti-Aircraft Brigade before I add it.

Also: according to the above diagram the 30th Honor Guard Brigade is actually a Regiment and not under the command of the Bucharest garrison, but directly under Land Forces Command. Once again, could you please clarify this point please? Thanks, noclador 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "By the way, a "divizion" equals a battalion. So I will rename all "divizions" battalions. A regiment is usually composed of 3-4 or many battalions." Yes indeed- a regiment has at least 2 battalions and the 206th Artillery Battalion is composed of the 229th Logistic Battalion, the 228th Anti-aircraft Battalion, an Armored Company, an Engineer Battalion and an Artillery Battalion... so if "divizion" equals a battalion these units can not be under the command of the 206th- so I think we must change this on the Land Force article.
 * Regarding the graphic: I updated it just now and the graphic is gigantic! it always was: it is 3529x1964 pixels or 120x 66,5 cm.. You need to click 2 times on the graphic to come to the really big version. Or you can use this link, that brings you directly to the fullsize image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Romania.png
 * I hope this works; greetings noclador 22:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 2nd mountain Brigade: i got the info from here: http://www.geocities.com/romanianspecialforces/vanatoridemunte.html#orderofbattle noclador 14:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're are correct. Therefore I removed the Scouting and Armored Company. but regarding the 8th Artillery Brigade you've made an error: the 83rd and 96th Btn are Multiple Rocket Launcher Btn., not Anti Aircraft Btn's. see: http://www.brigada8art.ro/en/u_subord.html Also: could we get some of the pictures from http://www.mapn.ro/fotodb/albums.php ? There are many good pictures of the Romanian Land Forces there: i.e: Picture 1 Picture 2
 * noclador 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the pictures: Tagging is the most annoying thing on Wikipedia! I hate doing that! Do you speak Romanian? I do not, but the best and easiest way to avoid all tagging problem is to write an email to the Romanian Army webpage staff asking them for allowance to use the images. We did that with the Italian Army: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_ottenute/Esercito we asked for their permission to use their images on Wikipedia and they granted it and since then we do not have any kind of tagging problems anymore. So, if you speak Romanian, would it be possible for you to write such an email?
 * Another benefit of such a contact with the Army- since the Italian Army knows about our wikipedia articles, they update the Italian wikipedia articles themselves all the time with new pictures and tons of detailed information. noclador 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian page...
Thank you for fixing the Russia page. I was about to, but then you got there first. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.7.209.91 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Chinese aircrafts
I think there should be a chart like the one on the PLAAF on the PLAN for the aircrafts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.91.82.30 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Constantin Cantacuzino
I wonder: have you ever heard of the guy who wrote this? It is funny, because most dictionaries remember him (and usually only him), but you claim "history has only heard of one Constantin Cantacuzino". I'm going to ask an admin to undo your redirect, for obvious reasons. Dahn 11:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problem is that you made the link for Constantin Cantacuzino. The article as I found it was under Constantine Cantacuzino, so I moved it to his original name plus "(aviator)" knowing that there was another prominent Constantin (for whom, as you noted yourself, "Constantine" is not a relevant variant). So, my reasoning is: under the form "Constantin", the 17th century one is way more present - therefore, the other one should be secondary; of the two "Constantines", the aviator is more notable (I agree with you 100% here, but that has little to do with your redirect). What adds to the problem is that there are plenty of links to "Constantin Cantacuzino", referring to the 17th century guy, which now point to the aviator. As you will note, in reference to your "Constantin Cantacuzino" redirect, we cannot go without undoing it (btw, check out what the redirect did to Constantine Cantacuzino). Dahn 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They were red links. Dahn 12:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is - keep it as a redirect, because it is the common French/English rendition of the aviator's name (so many users are likely to search for the aviator from that name). Dahn 12:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is about names in use in that particular language, Eurocopter, not names one can come up with. As you noted yourself, the name "Constantine Cantacuzino" is in use (not like John Ceanga, but like Eugene Ionesco, Marthe and Antoine Bibesco, Elvire Popesco, Take Jonesco, Hasdeu with no diacrtical marks etc - some used by the persons themselves, others very common variants). Creating redirects is both helpful and compliant with wikipedia requirements. Dahn 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I was a little upset because you had a chance to visit other mentions of the two from the Cantacuzino family article (which was linked in the article you were editing) or ask me why I did what I did. The thing is that I subsequently had to make some changes in several related articles, and I still don't know if I made all the appropriate changes). I was also intrigued by the edit summary you left with the redirect - because wikipedians are advised to look before they leap (that is, to see what is already out there). Sorry if I sounded rude, I was actually aiming at being direct, not at being confrontational. Dahn 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Can you help?
Hi there. Forgive me if this isn't the right place to ask this. I think you posted a message on my talk page welcoming me to Wikipedia, but suggesting than one or more of my edits were vandalism and warning me that this could lead to me being banned from Wikipedia. If you did not post this message, then I am sorry to have bothered you! If you did post it, would you kindly explain which of my rather few edits you consider to be vandalism? I love Wikipedia, and though i have only made a few small edits, they were all intended to be valuable in a small way. Please explain. Best regards, nick. 195.137.96.79 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my message. I have read all the discussion regarding the article I edited. I see no such consensus that the EU is a country, and it is not the the Wikipedia list of countries. Therefore, it is surely not appropriate to list it under the heading "Country" in the table - that would be confusing and factually innacurate. I agree with you that the aggregated military expenditure of the EU member states should be in the article - and it is listed in the table below allong with NATO. Surely it shouldnt be listed twice?

Please could you remove the vandalism tag you placed on my talk page. Wikipedia policy clearly states that vandalism tags should not be used in content disputes, and my edit is clearly not vandalism, as it is intended to make the encyclopedia more accurate.

Thankyou, and regards, Nick 195.137.96.79 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for responding quickly and politely. It seems we have a minor dispute! I'm sure we can find the best way forward - I note that you have reverted my edit, as is your right. Please do not claim that any change to the article that you don't like is vandalism though! I wont change it back yet - but i would like to talk with you about how this can be resolved. Here goes...

1) We both agree that the EU is not a country, but has some common features. 2) We both agree that the EU figure should be included for comparison.

Now, the EU figure IS still included in the table below (as is NATO) so people are still able to see that useful information. Nevertheless, since we both agree that the EU is not a country, how can you justify listing it as a field in a table with the heading "Country"? Surely this is like adding "salt" in a list of chemical elements on the basis that it has "some of the features of an element, and can be considered a collection of elements" even though it is not actually an element. I hope you see my point, and that I do not wish to remove the information about the EU, just that this information should be put in the right place. It clearly does not belong in a list of countries, for reasons I'm sure you can accept.

What is wrong with having it listed below (as it already is) in a list of federations or international organisations? Why list it twice?

Thanks again, Nick 195.137.96.79 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think you'll like the changes I've made as they make things more clear. I've moved the EU/NATO list to the top, so its easy to see it and compare it to other expenditures. In other words, people dont have to scroll down the whole list to see it, and there is now no need to duplicate the information. I hope you like it! Cheers, Nick 195.137.96.79 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Re the List of Countries by military expenditure page. Hello. I notice that you have reverted all of the 20 or so constructive edits i made to this page, including spelling corrections etc without explanation. Contrary to your statements regarding consensus on the talk page, there is no agreement at all that the EU should be included twice, as it currently is. Infact, you have systematically reverted the work of several editors in regard to this, with no explanation other than outrageous and wrong accusations of vandalism. This is a stark contradiction of Wikipedia policy and basic manners. Please stop doing it. Regards. 195.137.96.79 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I understand you do not agree with edits made by other editors and myself. This is fine, and I'm sure we can find a constructive way forward. However, if you continue to simply revert the legitimate edits of other users and myself, and continue to label them, wrongly, as vandalism I will have no choice but to take up the question of this, and your abuse of your VandalProof software with other editors and the authorisors of VandalProof applications. Please read the Wikipedia policy articles on What vandalism is, and What vandalism is not, as well as the policy articles concerning when and when not to revert an article. At the moment, your use of the revert tool, VandalProof software and accusations of vandalism are totally contrary to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policy. If you label one more legitimate edit to this article as vandalism I will have to seek advice elsewhere. I repeat my intention to find a solution to the little content dispute you seem to have with myself and other editors in relation to this article. It isn't a big deal, and it would be perfectly simple to discuss this matter to reach a solution. Reversion of other users legitimate edits, and labeling them as vandalism is simply not acceptable. Regards, 195.137.96.79 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for Image:TR-85M1 company.jpg== Thanks for uploading Image:TR-85M1 company.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Infantry fighting vehicles.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Infantry fighting vehicles.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LAROM.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LAROM.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 19:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)