User talk:Hornet24

New messages
Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Russian Navy Ships
Stick to the source, you cannot edit the list with no source. Warfare.ru includes all commisioned ships in active service. It also includes all ships under recent repairs.

Old Russian ships that are still commisioned which are in reserve/overhaul rusting in old Russian navy docks are NOT incuded becuase they are not active!! They are just lumps of rusting shit. Warfare,ru doesnt include those ships! Recon.Army (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for the list of active ships of the Russian navy? NO you cannot. We will stick with warfare.ru. Now dont send me any more messages. All commisoned ships in the US navy are active, but alot of Russian commisioned ships are old, rusty and NOT active. Thus warfare.ru dosent included them!! Do you remember the old Russian submarines? they were still commisioned but had no crews!, no wepon systems and were in overhaul/reserve for 11 years!!! then the Russian navy just decided to sell the submarines for scrap waste! This is the reality of the Russian Navy. Warfare.ru includes active commisioned ships. Not commisioned reserve rubbish. Recon.Army (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting messages no my profile. thanks Recon.Army (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of ships of the Russian Navy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right guys, slow down and consider things. I've merged the 'active ships' page, which is a WP:CFORK. As you will see from the AN/I thread note I posted, both Russian and Western navies have different ideas about whether a ship is actually in service or not. Recon.Army, warfare.ru is just another source - we cannot accept it as superior to Jane's or whatever else is being used. The proper route is to add the status-disputed ships you want to add to List of ships of the Russian Navy and to list explicitly there which source says so. Then readers get a flavour of the difficulties involved in counting operational ships - I doubt Headquarters Northern Fleet's assessment would match what U.S. Naval Intelligence would list or what JAne's would list; they all have different standards!! I will copy this to the other person involved in the dispute, and advise you both to use Talk:List of ships of the Russian Navy to work out problem issues. I know the Russian Navy's status reasonably well - I've published articles on it - and am quite happy to help you two work out areas where your two sources of information may contradict each other. Golden rule: list both sets of information, with the source attached, and let the reader figure it out - they're intelligent enough to know we may not all have a full picture. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hornet24, current discussion on this is now at Talk:List of ships of the Russian Navy. I would advise you to read that discussion carefully before making further changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hornet24, BRAVO ZULU! This is a really good list now. Keep adding sources to improve it! Buckshot06 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx, it first Award for my work here. In that page I fix some problematic points and improve "in construction" section - but due to lack of time I must little slow with next improvements. I have some more ongoing projects here with master changes (for example: Delta III class submarine, Dismantling of Russian Nuclear Ships and Submarines, etc.) with much more data and plans to rebuild which will be added after its time come :) --Hornet24 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian destroyer Marshal Shaposhnikov
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Russian destroyer Marshal Shaposhnikov, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Russian destroyer Marshal Shaposhnikov (BPK 543). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Project 1166
The reason I had reverted your edit was because I had thought that you were mentioning the state the vessel was at in 2008, and I had wrongly assumed that by now it had been completed, as the article previously suggested before your correcting edit. Sorry about the little mess up there. Nohomers48 (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet‎
First of all, the information you have introduced is not standard in the infobox, secondly, the source is undecipherable and unless you can state it properly, it is not even acceptable within the main body. I tried but the source is not one that I am familiar with. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I translated the information on the site, and it turns out to be a commercial site, filled with advertising spam that is not eligible for use as a verifiable, reliable source of information. Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC).
 * After reviewing the guidelines for reliable sources as -fnlayson suggested, although I am still not comfortable with the large amount of advertising on the site, I do agree that it CAN be considered a legitimate news source and my apologies to you for bring up a "hornet's nest." (pun intended). FWiW, I will endeavour to find a way to properly source this information. Bzuk (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Russian Navy ships - BRAVO ZULU!
First, Hornet24, I've just taken a look at this edit. This is exactly the kind of information we need; exact status details in/out of modernisation, reports of sailings/operations, crew readiness/details etc, all sourced to the exact page. Well done!!

However, please start putting the date of the report as well as the link.

Thus, for your contributions to improving Russian Navy articles, it gives me pleasure to award you an honorary Guards badge for your efforts. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Frigate talk
See Talk:Admiral Grigorovich class frigate for reply.D2306 (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a contradicion. Older sources seem to call the third frigate "Kolchak", while the most recent one, on the day of laying down the first figate, call the third ship "Makarov". RIA Novosti is a reliable news source. I think until confirmation both names can be present or even better, let the third ship called "Makarov (?)" and and add a fourth ship "Kolchak (?)". Please don't start an renaming war.D2306 (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see many times "light desinformation" in RIA Novosti pages (for ex.: Dmitriy Donskoy is Project 941U - not 941UM, atc...). I give RIA only as information base. I nowhere else found information about renaming third ship of class to Makarov, but renaming is possible, because ship will be laid down about 12 month later. I am interested for Russian Navy for a long time and now try to fixed this theme here in Wikipedia. I try to find something about renaming, and fix that :) Renaming war is the last thing, what i need... --Hornet24 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we just have to wait a few months until this is confirmed. RIA, like many news sites often mess up, though Project 941U/941UM is a less obvious visible mistake, than getting a completely different name. My guess would be that both ship names will be used. Perhaps expand the table to 5 ships that are panned and have a ship ship called "Makarov (?)" and and a ship called "Kolchak (?), with a footnote that the name of the third ship is uncertain at the moment.D2306 (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian workship PM-138
Do you have any info about the Russian Workship PM-138 stationed in the Black sea Fleet? Cant find much info about it. Walle83 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=11397

I have only limited information for this moment, but i try to get some more info. PM-138 is Amur II-class floating workshop of Project 304M. 304/304M class was build in Poland Sczeczin shipyard and have more then 20 ships. Length is 123 meters, beam 17 meters, draft 4,5 meters and displacement about 5500 tons. It have 2 engines and 1 shaft (power is unknown), speed is about 14 knots and crew is expected 200 sailors. Capacity of spare parts is about 300 tons. Date of commission is unknown but I expected it between 1970 and 1985 :D --Hornet24 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to resamble the Ampf Aligator ships somewhat.Walle83 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see photo of Project 304 first time few days ago at same page :) Its really look similar with Project 1171 but silouette of hull same as lenght of superstructure is slightly different. It may be given by same time of projection time, maybe at same design bureau - i havnt relevant data now... That information which I give you in up is curently the best one which I have and I hope they are true. --Hornet24 (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dismantling of Russian Nuclear Ships and Submarines
Hello, Hornet24, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Dismantling of Russian Nuclear Ships and Submarines, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! The Bushranger One ping only 07:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is possible, please abort deletation. I was have some medical and personal problems around 18 months, and due to this reason I cant finished this "project" same as graphic redesigning of List of ships of the Russian Navy and others... Because here is nobody who can complete this changes without me, they are still undergo building/upgrade... Now I am in relatively stable condition, but here is lot of new material on my worktable and mail, which I must sort before i can published it... Thanks for your understanding Hornet24 (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dismantling of Russian Nuclear Ships and Submarines for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dismantling of Russian Nuclear Ships and Submarines 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/Dismantling of Russian Nuclear Ships and Submarines 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 good 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. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What did you think about the deletion notice you received?
Hi Hornet24,

In December you received a message about either "Nomination for deletion" or "Proposed deletion" of an article you created. I'd like to ask you a few quick questions: You can feel free to answer on my talk page or send me your response by email (mpinchuk@undefinedwikimedia.org). (I won't quote you or link your answers to your username if you don't feel comfortable with that.) Your feedback is incredibly useful for improving the content of deletion notifications, so please take a minute to think about and answer these questions. Thank you! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Was the message helpful? Were the instructions clear and easy to follow?
 * 2) If not, how do you think the message could be improved?
 * 3) What do you think about the deletion process in general? Do you understand how to contest a deletion?

AktiNo/Russian Navy ships
Thanks for your message Hornet24; this is an initial acknowledgement. Just a quick note, the word you want is *unreferenced*. I'll look into it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)