User talk:Eurocopter/Archive 5

Your comments are invited on a proposal at WP:MILAIR
As an editor who has been active in working on air force-related articles, I’d appreciate your input on a a proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles. I’d like to get broader inputs and would appreciate your suggestions on improving the proposal. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 20:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation of intros for fighter aircraft
I have been standardizing intros for fighter aircraft, and you have reverted my edits more than once for no valid reason! Please double-check when reverting to make sure that useful parts of the edit are not reverted. If you disagree with a single change and not the other changes in an edit, please only revert that individual change. Bletent reverting waists hours of valuable editing... HyeProfile 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a moment, who made that "standard"? Me and User:Fnlayson decided that would be good if we put the NATO reporting name at the end of the lead. And you just came and mentioned the NATO reporting name again, but at the start of the lead. So, what would be the point for mentioning the NATO reporting name twice in the same 5-row lead?? --Eurocopter tigre 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Romania
There is nazi propaganda as well as soviet propaganda. What's the difference between them? --Mr. Diegos 18:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're correct, but to avoid conflicts with other users we should maintain a perfect neutrality. --Eurocopter tigre 18:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you see.--Mr. Diegos 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A-class review for USS Kentucky (BB-66)
Changes have been made to the article which have, among other things, lengthened the article somewhat. Would you be willing to reevaluate your stance for the A-class review? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LAROM2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:LAROM2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash
Sorry to hear about the crash - ours prayers go out to the families. One quick question: Do you belive this evet rises to the level of notability to need a separate article? The info you have at this time could easily be mentioned on the IAR 330 in an Incedents section. A crash with so few casualites isn't usually notable on its own. I'm asking based on the limited info available, as this just happened today. However, if questions such as saftey concerns in the Romanian military, or defects in the design itself, are asked by the press or others, then it would have the potential to be notable. I am NOT going to nominate the crash page for AFD now, and don't think it'll be necessary, but someone else my do so, so you need to be prepared to prove notabilty. I consider you a competant editor, and my questions are in no way aimed at hurting you or being needlessly critical. If you need any help on the page, feel free to ask, and do what I can. - BillCJ 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article will be expanded soon, but there are very few informations available for now, as the crash took place one hour ago, at exactly 7:08pm (5:08 UTC). In my opinion the crash is quite notable, because the aircraft type was modernized two years ago in cooperation with Elbit systems of Israel. Also, it is quite notable when you lose 5% of your attack helicopter fleet in peace time (as the RoAF is operating only 24 attack helicopters - all of them being IAR 330 Puma SOCAT). See also 2006 Slovak Air Force Antonov An-24 crash. --Eurocopter tigre 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your response. I did realize it just happeneded, and that little info is available, but wanted to see if you thought enough would be forthcoming to assert notability. I've asked Alan, and admin and regular contributor to crash articles, for comments. He is generally very fair, and will give his honest opinion. Other users, especially those from the deletionist cabal, will not be so considerate! BTW, you did a GREAT job putting that page together so quickly.! - BillCJ 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually all the info available for now, can be found in the article. As soon as new info will be available, the article will be updated immediatly. --Eurocopter tigre 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to come across as a member of the deletionist cabal and disappoint everyone, but as the article stands, and the factors discussed and references provided, this just doesn't rise, in my opinion, to the level of encyclopedic notability. Unless there are significant or unusual circumstances involved, we rarely cover combat crashes, much less training crashes. In order to give folks a chance to discuss this more fully, I'm sending it to AfD. Please feel free to comment there, especially if you disagree with me. Given your response on the talk page, you might get the impression that I'm bagging on Romania, but I'm not. I'm looking at this with no nationalistic views...merely encyclopedic ones. Sorry.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eurocopter, I think you should rename it Helicopter crashes in Romania or Post-1990 Romanian Army helicopter crashes. If there are any other crashes, you can add them now or later. I believe the event is notable, but not to the level of a single article. But it is ok if there is a general title and only one idem; it would be an article needing development. :Dc76\talk 11:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We shall see, as I will propose a compromise in the next hours, and if it will not be accepted I will probably to what you said. Thanks for your excellent idea! --Eurocopter tigre 11:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * you are welcome. i'll be away for a few days.:Dc76\talk 11:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is losing 5% of your attack helicopters, but don't forget that most countries the size of Romania that have a prof. army likewise have around the same number of attack helicopters - 24. Dapiks 06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash
Is there some particular reason it needs to be closed now, rather than whenever the day's nominations all get closed? (I try to avoid closing deletion discussions on military topics, for the most part, to avoid the appearance of being motivated by WPMILHIST doctrine.) Kirill 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Eurocopter, long time no c :) I found out about a 7th art. bat. as part of the 69th art. brig. but I am not sure if it still exists yet. Do you think you could please look into it as it could prove useful in completing the structure of the Ro land forces. Dapiks 06:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely back-back but I am always ready to work on those pages ;)) And it just so happens that I noticed that 7th art. batt. so I decided to tell you about it - perhaps you know more.Dapiks 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure of Romanian Land Forces

 * Hi, I looked at both sites. The MP bat. site is not so good in terms of organization since that page is still under construction. On the other site, I noticed 1 new unit only:


 * Batalionul 1 Instructie Transmisiuni (Craiova). These sites seem to suggest that they are part of the 2nd Inf. Brigade,.
 * Batalionul 33 Infanterie seems to be a typo. The article talks about Bat. 32 Infantry from Timisoara which is already on our list.
 * Lastly, there is the issue over that 7th Art. Bat. as part of the 69th brigade which is not in this article but which again, I was wondering if you could look into. Its on the 4th Army Corps. page under the history pages, here.
 * Also on this site, I noticed two bat. which I am not sure where to place them. They are 1) Batalionul Mixt Româno-Ungar de Menţinerea Păcii and 2) Batalionul Multinaţional de Geniu „TISA” (which from that site, seems to be a totally dif. bat).


 * Two more issues which I wanted to bring up were 1) whether Romania has 2 MP bat. or just one, the 265th?
 * 2) If the only paratrooper bat. are the 60th and 498th? or whether there is a 3rd Air-assault bat. as the graph shows? If not, we should take that bat. out.

Cheers! Dapiks 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Romanian part of the Batalionul Multinational de Geniu "TISA", is the 52nd Engineer Btn, HQ at Satu Mare, so it's not a dif btn. Batalionul 1 Instructie Transmisiuni could be an auxiliary unit of the 2nd Brigade, as well as an sub-unit of an Military education centre. Regarding the 7th btn, i'll have to do some further searches. Best, Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, what about these bat.:


 * Batalionul 1 Politie Militara. You can find it here:.


 * Batalionul 84 Mentenanta, here.


 * Finally, is there 55th Art. Regiment in the Romanian Land forces or not? Take a look at this site - it seems to suggest that they mixed up the 50th with the 55th? Can that be possible? This site  seems to suggest that the 55th art. still exists but that it is a bat. not a regiment.

Cheers! Dapiks (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides the 265th MP btn., the 1st btn is another MP btn from the total of four MP btns. in Romania (2 in Bucharest, one in Targu Mures and one in Focsani - I don't have any information regarding the last two).
 * Batalionul 84 Mentenanta certainly exists, but I don't if it is subordinated to a major unit or directly to the 1st Territorial Army Corps.
 * Here, you are making a confusion, the 50th AAM regiment is operational (based in Floresti, near Cluj - certainly not in Dej). It is the first time I hear of the 55th AAM Battalion, and I don't have any idea where belongs to.
 * Also, I made some updates in the 4th Terit Army Corps and 69 Mixed Art Brg. Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems I've discovered some major changes in the 4th Terit. Army Corps: I've requested Noclador to make the changes in the OrBat graphic. Meanwhile, I'll update the structures. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * the 4th Logistics Brigade - Dej, no subordinated units found;
 * 4th Engineer Brigade becomes the 4th Engineer Battalion, and its ex-units are now subordinated directly to the Army Corps command.
 * The 55th Signal Regiment becomes the 55th Signal Battalion;


 * Looks like I've found a gold mine - http://www.mapn.ro/eveniment/2007/200710/20071013/cincu2.doc. 55th AAM Battalion - Dej is under the 81st Mec Brigade. Also, new units have been added to the 81st Brigade structure. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces OrBat update
Hi, OrBat update ✅. with the exception of the "??MP battalion in Focşani under the 1st Army Corps" as adding this one, would throw the entire structure of the graphic into chaos (not enough space anymore). Next time a major update like this is needed, I will add it with the other units and rearrange the graphic than. Cheers, --noclador (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, nice changes. I think we can safely say that we're almost done. But I notice that instead of the 4th Eng Brig, now there's a 4th Logistics Brigade with Eng. units under it. Does that make sense? If the Eng. 4th Brig was downsized to a bat, shouldn't it be under direct 4th Army Corps structure? On the other hand, here's an article from 2007, that seems to suggest that the 4th brig still exists . Dapiks (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Uite ceva destul de amuzant . Bat. 814 foloseste inca T-55. Stiam ca Romania are peste 300 de tancuri TR-85 M1 - iar unui bat. de tancuri i se aloca de obicei 54-58 aparate. Romania se pare ca are doar 2 bat. d tancuri, deci stii cumva motivul ptr. care nu a alocat tr-85ul modificat si la bat. 814? Mrs. Dapiks (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Inexplicabil deocamdata. Din pacate nu suntem nici pe departe gata, avand inca 5 brigazi cu structurile incomplete. Nu stiu ce sa spun despre brg. 4 geniu, dar site-ul oficial forter arata batalionul 4 geniu, btn 136 treceri si batalionul 52 geniu ca unitati independente. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you are right. You have this site in mind, right ? But then we should ask noclador to change the graph. Dapiks (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, Noclador did changed the graph few hours ago... --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah but he placed the Eng. Bat. under the Log. brigade.Dapiks (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

8th Mixed Artillery Brigade (Romania)
✅ see here. Re. 4th Log./ Eng. Brig. if you look closely you will see that the Eng. units are not under the 4th Log. Brig, but under like it under the 4th Corps. I did not yet make a own column for the 4th Logistic as we do not know yet any units. As soon as we know its units I will give it a own column. --noclador (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅, but:
 * there is certainly no engineer btn under 15th brg;
 * than you need to take the Engineer battalion out of the units listed under 15th Mechanized Territorial Brigade at Romanian Land Forces --noclador (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How to assess redirect pages?
Hi,

I'm presently assessing #s 23000-23500 in the Assessment Drive. I have a question about how to assess a page, namely, Muhammad_Zaki, which redirects to Pakistan Army. Now, do I just strike through the entry, and consider it not a part of the MILHIST Project? Thanks Sniperz11talk 01:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You can assess it on WPMILHIST as a Non-article. For example "WPMILHIST |class=NA". --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale
Hey Eurocopter. You seem to have a problem with including a brief description of the cockpit for the Dassault Rafale? It seems strange that compared with the other comparable platforms - F-18, F-22, Eurofighter, Gripen, JSF - the article currently says nothing about the cockpit. You might expect Dassualt themselves to have defense secrets to keep and a commercial axe to grind, but your User Page suggests you're more independant. Ain't that the case? Or do ya know something we don't? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

From Buckshot06
Do you want to resend that email again? Might be better discussed that way I think. I checked my spam and everything- can't work out where it went. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I found them now. They were going to my other address. However you do not appear to have understood my point about repeating material from AFM. Do you want to take a look at the 14th Air Army article to clarify the difference, with, say, your writeup at 11th Air Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I thought I said this before. I do not want to help someone by sending information which may be used in a way which gets WP into copyright difficulties. Until all the Russian Air Armies are fixed roughly the same way that that the 14th is, I'm not sending it. Why? Because we'll go through the same silly process! (Also, I have no way of sending it to you except by manually copying it out, and you'll probably find it's mostly stuff you already know - Pirana (sp) APCs, committment of two brigades for NATO duties, etc). Buckshot06 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Can see we don't agree on this and are not likely to. There's a copyright discussion taking place now on the main talk page - do you want me to put your initial version and the actual article text there, and see what others think? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi ET. Hope you're having a good holiday. When you're back, take a look at the coordinators' discussion board, where I've raised the Air Armies issue, and I will follow whatever the eventual consensus is. Best regards and happy Christmas, Buckshot06 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tancuri

 * salut, de tancuri nu prea stiu ce sa zic. cu siguranta nu sunt 1000. 1000 erau in inventarul din 2003 dar de atunci romania tine doar 270 de tancuri + inca cateva ptr. rezerva. uite aici un articol despre tancuri din 2003 . Din cate stiu, ro are vreo 300 + tancuri TR-85M1 dar numai un singur batalion de tancuri e dotat cu tancul nou. celalalt bat. inca a ramas cu TR-55. Cat despre bat. de inf.-mec. nu prea stiu cum sunt organizate la armata romana. stiu ca la americani si englezi (si daca nu ma inesel mai la toti aliatii nato) -> 1 bat de inf. mec. are 2 comp. de inf. mec. + 2 comp. de tancuri. s-ar putea sa fie la fel si la noi dar nu sunt sigur. Dapiks (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * by the way, another thing. noclador is right - all those eng. battalions under the 4th log brigade should appear as directly under the 4th corps, not the 4th brigade.Dapiks (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just have a look more carefully on them, they are not under the 4th brigade. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Hello Eurocopter, my sincere apologies for this awkward move, I hope you didn't judge this confusion too harshly, only now did I pick it up. I'll try to explain. At this time I was going through some trouble with my username, it was user:counterstrike69 but I simply redirected my page to user:Bogdan and signed as Bogdan. So for several weeks, when I got into trouble for my actions I was using the counterstrike69 talk page and not the Bogdan one. When I sorted all that out (went to WP:Changing username) my user was fully renamed user:Bogdan, so I just took my newer talk page from user talk:counterstrike and pasted it onto user talk:Bogdan. Somehow your post went unnoticed and when I made a cut-and-paste move of my page from user talk:counterstrike69 (where you didn't post) it deleted any posts that were made on user talk:Bogdan between 01:48, 18 October and 11:14, 27 October, I just didn't notice as I figured all comments at that time would be made at the counterstrike69 page (as the redirect was gone). Once again I apologize, I will translate 150th rifle division for you tomorrow :-), best regards, Bogdan що? 04:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, no problem. Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 150th Rifle Division‎. Regards, Bogdan що? 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yen Bai mutiny
Howdy there. I've expanded the article, lead and added pictures. Thanks,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ping!  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I've replied again. I am afraid that there is a sparsity of suitable images for the second half of the article.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question
Infobox Military Conflict can be used for just about anything if you leave off the combatants and everything below. Kirill 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ROMBAC 1-11
I just ran across the ROMBAC 1-11, and it's pretty skimpy at the moment. It's had a merge tag on it since August 07, but no has even started a merge section at Talk:BAC One-Eleven yet. There even seems to be some confusion on the talk page over whether any of them ever entered service. Could you take a look, and see if you think the Rombac 1-11 page has potential to make a better orticle or not? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No way, the aircraft has no future, and only three are still in service (with Romavia). I suggest immediate merging with BAC One-Eleven. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Page is now a redirect. - BillCJ 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome, I intend to focus on WWII and I have joined that task force. Harland1 13:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:P-20M.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:P-15M.jpg. The copy called Image:P-15M.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 14:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:P-20M.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:P-20M.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chick Bowen 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Chick Bowen 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessing lists
Just a note: lists shouldn't be tagged with class=NA, since they can go up the assessment scale towards FL status; NA is really only meant for disambiguation pages and the like. Thanks! :-) Kirill 19:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Beevor as a reference
Please see Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia/Archive 1 --Philip Baird Shearer 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please can we try to solve this. If you can add the information to the talk page that I have asked for, the I should be able to solve the first page, and if that is successful we can probably fix all of them. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Baia
Could you check the wikilinks for the article please. I changed Chilia to Chilia Veche, but I am unsure. Some other links might need to be checked. I have changed the infobox to Template:Infobox Military Conflict and I have fixed all the references that used the ref name format. (I think I caught them all). You only need the full reference once, then use the ref name code. Regards Woodym555 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Tanks
Salut. You've asked me before about RoLF tanks. I've come across two sites that might answer your question. One clearly points out that the number of TR-85 M1 is not over 300 as previously thought. In fact I would like to see a source that mentions 300-350 modernized TR-85 M1s. This site mentions a plan to modernize just 56 of them. This makes sense since as we previously noticed, only one bat. in the RoLF actually has the TR-85 M1. The other Bat. has the old T-55s.

Here is another site, which might help us with completing the Military Equipment page [www.mapn.ro/eveniment/2007/200711/20071126_1/documentar.doc].

Cheers. Dapiks (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but how about the TR-85s? I really don't think that there are no TR-85s in our inventory.. --Eurocopter tigre 14:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We still have some 158 TR-85s that were not modernized, out of which only 54 are still functional. We also have some TR-77-580s. I fould this site - the Romtehnica website . If you go to "offers from stock" and then to "List of armoured fighting vehicles available to be delivered from surplus Romanian MoD", you'll see a full list of what Romania still has. Dapiks (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The site is quite good, even if I don't know if it is up-to-date. However, I noticed a strange thing (I don't know if you are familiar with the air force), one of the MiG-29s was produced in 1994. That means it was phased out after 9 years of service?!?! That's extremely low for an aircraft such an MiG-29. Best, -Eurocopter tigre 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not produced in 1994. I was bought from Moldova for some Romanian TABs that Romania gave to the RM. It was much older than 9 years old, but the year only marks the date when it entered its service with the RoAF.Dapiks (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the site mostly contains eq. that can no longer be used. So it doesn't say much about the eq. currently in the RoLF. However, what it does do is that it gives us a hint as to the numbers we need to subtract from the 1375 tanks or +2000 APCs and stuff like that.Dapiks (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, we have to go look into the RoLF and the number we post. I am still not convinced that its 90.000. I know that 75.000 sounds a lot less but I've been looking at other countries - UK does not include civilians, nor do Poland, France and US. Dapiks (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that you are still confusing civilian personnel with reserve personnel. In Romania, all men have their Livret militar containing their rank + location in which the military service was fullfilled (for example, in wartime, I would be a sergeant) - that's actually the reserve force of Romania. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, I am not confusing civ-personnel with reserves. Romania, as of 2007, "no longer has reserves" (I think I read that in one of the links I gave you). Civ. personnel, in my understanding are civilians (i.e. : non-military) that work for the Ministry of Defence. However, they cannot be counted in the active force - these guys do most of the administrative work, etc. but they're are not the guys who actually go out there and fight. If you take a look at the UK military article, you will see that they explicitly take out the civies from their active force total. Dapiks (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash
You asked for a month at this AfD, and nothing's been done to the article. Please let me know your intentions, beecause consensus was to delete if the month went by and the compromise conditions weren't met.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lancer/MiG-21
EcT, could you take a look at [this diff, and the Romanian-language sources? As I understand it, the Lancer/LanceR is a specific upgrade of the MiG-21 produced in Romania. If it is the Lancer being replaced by the Gripen or Typhoon, not just older MiG-21s, when we need to be specific about that. Thanks. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look in a minute, MiG-21 LanceR is the oficial designation of the aircraft. LanceR is no way a Nato reporting name. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa
Hi, This is just an invitation to get together at the Operation Barbarossa discussion page and see if the article can't be improved to the FA level. I am going to try and firstly restructure and later rewrite the article in my sandbox (firstly at home on my PC), but I have already discussed some ideas with one other contributor and would appreciate more input from members of the task force.--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Another operation...
Seeing as how you were the one to rename that article, perhaps you might consider joining the relevant discussion? --Illythr (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! -- R O   A M A  T  A A  | msg  17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked from editing
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * – Anthøny 15:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Woow, i'm pretty sure I made only three edits, of which one was only a partial revert. May I ask why i'm being blocked, as I didn't violated the 3RR? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Silence talks...another admin abuse.. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Curious indeed; I only count three edits here. (Not that you ought to be edit-warring, in any case, even if you don't go over three reverts; but not grounds for a block, as I would interpret it.)  I'll see what I can find out. Kirill 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers Kirill. :-) --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See here. Kirill 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)