User talk:Jonathon A H

Editing
Hi, Johnathon AH, thanks for going to the trouble of letting me know about 'pmulcahy.com'; unfortunately, I have no idea what you are talking about - I only copyedited the BMP-1 Variants article and anything to do with a video game is beyond me. As far as that article is concerned, anything that is cut out must be a good thing as it is far too long as it is, (as are the other BMP articles). Regards RASAM (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

LAV III
Hiya Johnathon, thanks for the headsup on the 'CF' vs. 'army' reverts. I've also fixed the 1994 sentence to improve the semantics. Ciao -HarryZilber (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits to the Resistance article
I got something wrong it seems. I saw someone who changed all the scores, and apparently, they had changed it correctly and I reverted it back to the wrong version. Some people go around doing this; changing numbers on wikipedia just for the fun of it, and I misinterpreted the last one as that. Sorry about that. 10:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, then. Though adding an edit summary will help avoid confusion. :)  To be perfectly honest, there are a few scores that are off, but there were more right than wrong with the previous version.  The scores should probably all be sourced and cited like most of the other game articles, but I'm stuck on dial-up for a little bit and can't do it. Jonathon A H (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

T-90
The article you are reffering to does not explicitly state that Venezuela did not buy the T-90. Rather it only talks about SOME of the weapons that Venezuela purchased, as the article itself states that only SOME of the equipment was talked about. The citations i recently added confirm that Hugo Chavez was in negotiations to buy both the T-72 and T-90 and Hug Chavez himself confirmed it. Please read the latest citations i added (click the first and second citations in the Venezuela section under operators) Rahlgd (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

About the Peruvian Army article
Greetings, I'll notice than you put the tag inm the section of equipment, look; is quite difficult to put references in this section mainly because the actual numbers are unknown, but I'll can assure you than the data of the aircraft is quite close to the reality, because I'll see many of the units in person here in Lima, Perú. I'll will remove the tag but I'll want to knwo your opinion, remember than a wikipedian must assume good faith, the Wikiproject Peru members trust in my editions, I'll don't see why you don't. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm not calling your work in to question at all, but having reliable sources makes the article that much stronger. :)  Without sources anyone could make changes, additions or remove information with no effective way of challenging the validity of it, so asking for sources was meant to be helpful by getting other people to contribute some sources, not a criticism (I've added the same tag to articles I've worked on).  I can definitely sympathize with how difficult it is to find information sometimes. -Jonathon A H (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ott Jeff

 * Hi JAH -- I'm inclined to agree with you quite strongly. It might not be a big deal if it weren't for the fact that the anon IP refers to Ott Jeff in the the third person and is apparently attempting to create the appearance of consensual support for Ott Jeffs arguments. It looks suspiciously like a case of sock puppet/SPA/meat puppetry. I'd say that there is very compelling cause to file an SPI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Move of Algerian navy article
Hey, I saw your move of Algerian National Navy to Navy of the Republic of Algeria and your edit summary that stated that that was the "official" name, per the CIA factbook link. (I would suspect that the French name, Marine de la Republique Algerienne would be more official than one in English, but that's beside the point.) I have no vested interest in the former name, but it appears that it is in more common usage than the new name. A Google search of the two terms shows about 74,000 links to the former name and exactly 7 links to the new name (2 of which are to the CIA factbook itself). Since a google search is not a definitive factor in such matters, do you have any other evidence of non-Internet usage of the new name? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Beyond the fact that the name was provided by the CIA World Factbook (a commonly used and trusted source on Wikipedia), and it is virtually a literal and grammatically correct/acceptable translation of the French name, no, I don't have any evidence of non-Internet usage. I was also basing it on experience with how military branches from other countries were handled on wiki (see "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" vs the more widely used and just as acceptable "Canadian Navy").  I'll be happy to move it back, but out of curiosity does this mean that all the Canadian Forces articles should be renamed as well? (Honest question) - Jonathon A H (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think rather than do that, I'll make a requested move to get some more opinions on it. Personally, I'm conflicted, because the new name does seem more accurate, but it doesn't seem to be as common a name. (My main interest in the topic is that all of the categories for the navy and its ships are under the former name; changing them through CFD would be trivial if the current name stays.) By the way, the table of ships you did for the article looks really nice. :)
 * As for the other, "Canadian Navy" is ambiguous, since it could refer to either the Canadian Forces or the Royal Canadian Navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea, and quite fair. I don't really have much of an opinion on the name myself, I just though something that more closely reflected the French name, and came from a trusted source would be more appropriate, but I hadn't seen the common name policy to be perfectly honest.  I don't mind if it stays or gets moved back.  Re: the table.  Thanks.  :)  I thought it would be an improvement over the list that had been there before... it wasn't the easiest to read, and it needed some pruning. I've done a few for other small and neglected national military pages like Macedonia and El Salvador.  It also helps keep them 'honest' (I removed the phantom legions of Leopard 2s and other armour that the El Salvador page claimed, for example). - Jonathon A H (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Context
I didn't want you to think I was a complete psycho regarding that edit at History of golf. The culprit was a badley written sectense that got interpreted two completely different ways. username 1 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, mistakes/misinterpretations happen with all of us. I just thought it should be corrected ASAP. - Jonathon A H (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian army
You made amssive change to the Indian army equipment articles without first discussing on the equipment page.the artillery section is messed up as you cant get to know which artillery is self propelled as you put that information in the notes section.THe no of tanks has been changed by over 1500.Please discuss.Zoravar (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a change to the format, the information is largely the same as what existed before. The only changes made to the information were to add notes or change numbers based on cited sources.  The page as it existed before was a mess.  It was a long list with much of the information presented poorly, duplicated, or unreadable.  Now it's categorized by general type, all equipment has a similar format so the information can be presented in a clear, consistent manner, and duplicate entries can be avoided.  And yes, you can tell what artillery is self-propelled if you look at the type column - another advantage of using a table.  Self-propelled artillery is kept with the Armoured Fighting Vehicles.   As for the number of tanks - no sources were cited for the numbers given before.  Please see Citing sources.  I used a reference that was used on the page previously.  If you have a more reliable reference, then by all means provide it, but please don't take offense because the referenced number is lower than the unreferenced number. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ill see the references cuz when such big cuts are made then it ahs to be referenced,also our no. of tanks etc are anybody's guess as our services dont disclose the numbers.Zoravar (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Verified the t-55s,we also have t-54 that come under same name(can eb found on t55 variants page).t-72 nos can be wrong aswell as 1800-2200 t-72s are being upgraded but to upgrade 2200 you need atleast 2200 tanks.Also for the reduction in t-90 there was no reference(I know earlier version ahd none either) and no link bout pt-76 being retired.Even he had links bout t-72s and t-55s,Please discuss this further with me.Zoravar (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)(cross checked your references).


 * FOudn teh numbers of the T-90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoravar (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Link to t-72 upgrade plan.
 * Link to t-55 models.
 * ALso please provide some link for pt-72 being retired.Thanks.Dont get me wrong its not a personal argumentXD,Zoravar (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: PT-76 - See here You can't reference text that's been removed, sorry.
 * Re: T-72 numbers/upgrades - Note that the only source given on the T-72 is to a private page.  It can't really be confirmed by anyone.  It's not really a good source. (See Verifiability - specifically the access section) The Bharat-Rakshak information is at least consistent with other sources
 * Re: T-90s - Strategy page is notoriously unreliable. Most other sources state that T-90s will be procured in three separate deals.  Two orders from Russia (The initial order of 310 plus a follow on order of 300 or 330 depending on source - the more recent and Russian sources state 300, so I think that's more accurate), and the local production of about 1000 more.  The locally built tanks only started to roll out in August of this year, and the first order of Russian tanks took about 4 years from the time of the order (2000) to the knockdown kits getting assembled (2004).  At most the Indian Army would have 620 T-90s in service, and that's assuming they've received the second order of Russian tanks in full. That's the 310 original tanks, 300 from the second batch of Russian tanks, and 10 produced locally.  See here, here, here, here (also contains a bit about the overall plans for the armoured force) and here for further reading and details.  Since we can't confirm the delivery of the second batch, and we can only confirm 10 tanks produced locally as of August 2009, then I think we can really only fairly list 320-620 as being in service at this time.
 * Hope that helps to clarify the changes I made.
 * -Jonathon A H (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah.but Bharaqt Rakshak only gives no.1 of t072 mk1 and t-55 not other version of t-72 and t-54.Zoravar (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:T-54/55 - They're virtually the same tank, differentiating is just a matter of semantics, and doesn't deserve a separate entry - note that the Wikipedia article does the same thing. As for the T-72... According to most sources there's only one type still in service, the T-72M1.  What other version are you referring to?  Beyond that there are maybe a handful of prototypes or minor modifications for command tanks, but they're statistically insignificant when compared to the rest of the fleet. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re:Re:I apologize for the mistake in t-72,but India prolly has t-54 aswell.here is what i found in t-54/55 operators and variants:
 * T-54/T-55 with sheet steel tubes placed on 100mm barrels to distinguish them from Pakistani Type 59s.[57]
 * T-54B modified by India.[36]
 * T-55A upgraded with 105mm gun.[36]
 * Zoravar (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. As for the T-54s - I'm sure India probably does (or did) have some, but they're virtually identical to the T-55.  If you'd like to change the entry so it says T-54/55 like the Wikipedia article, I think that's fine, but I don't think there's any need for a  separate entry. T-54s and T-55s are usually counted together because they're pretty much the same tank.  As far as the modifications are concerned, feel free to put those in the note section if they're well sourced.  The 105mm gun modifications would be particularly noteworthy.  The problem is that many of the references on the T-54/55 page are from the JED site, and those are no longer considered a good source because you have to pay to access it.  Also, be sure to take GlobalSecurity.org info with a grain of salt.  Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong - note that they still project almost 700 Arjun by 2020 where most sources have the orders capped at 124.  It's always best to check against multiple sources rather than accepting whatever has the highest number. - Jonathon A H (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no clue what a jed site is and also could you please clean up the artillery table a little.It gets confusing whether the self propelled artillery is counted in total no. of that model.I would have done it myself but im unfamiliar with tables so I cant even modify the t-55 to include vairants.Zoravar (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 'JEDsite' is a website used as a reference for many of the claims on the T-72 operators/variants page. The problem is that it's a pay site now, so no one can verify the information without paying, which goes against Wikipedia policy.  As for editing tables.  |- represents the division between two rows, | is used at the start of a new row, and || represents a cell/column division.  So, using the BMP-1 entry as an example (it's nice and short):


 * BMP-1 || Infantry fighting vehicle || 700 || ||

So BMP-1 is in the Name column, Infantry fighting vehicle is in the Type column, 700 is in the Quantity column and so on. The rest is just a matter of Wikilinks. Anything surrounded by a double square bracket ( link ) is a wikilink leading to an article by that name. To make a wikilink to the T-54/55 page, you'd just have to write T-54/55 which gives you this T-54/55. The article names are often case sensitive, so be sure everything is correct. You can also give wikilinks an alias if need be. For example, if you were writing about a sight with a bolometric sensor and wanted to provide easy access to background information, you would link to a wiki article about bolometric sensors. The problem here is that Wikipedia doesn't have an article titled 'bolometric sensor', nor does it need one, but it does have an article about bolometers (which make bolometric sensors possible), so you can give the wikilink a new alias like this: Bolometric sensor which will result in this: Bolometric sensor. Don't be afraid to use the 'Show preview' button to test an edit before you save it, that way you can avoid obvious mistakes. Wikipedia also gives you the option of creating a User sandbox for experimentation with wiki code and writing wiki articles (WP:User page) so don't be afraid to experiment there. :)

As for the artillery - See the armoured fighting vehicls section for self-propelled artillery. They're considered systems in and of themselves, so they're kept separate from regular artillery. If you look at the Type column, it indicates which vehicles are self-propelled artillery. Any artillery in the artillery column is either towed or not platform specific, unlike the self-propelled vehicles, so there's a clear distinction between self-propelled and towed artillery. Hope this helps. - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Message for you at Jackehammond Talk
Jonathan I got a message for you at the Eryx section on my talk page--Jackehammond (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MBT-2000/Al-Khalid
RE your edit summary: "Further tweak. Please review the article - Changing the engine and FCS doesn't make it a unique tank - it's still an MBT2000."
 * I agree, the Al-Khalid is a modified MBT-2000 and the article needs changes. What changes do you propose? --Hj108 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Iraqi Army split
Would you mind explaining a little more fully why you thought it was necessary to split the history section away? Meanwhile, British Army is at 59k, United States Army is at 75k, and Russian Ground Forces is at 64k. Why the need to reduce this one army entry to ~30 k, and in so doing, halve the context available in the process? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on a number of factors. Citing policy, there's WP:Article size and the related WP:Splitting, both of which recommend keeping the articles within a reasonable size for both practical and style issues (For the record, I represent one of the technical issues mentioned in the Article size page - I do most of my editing from a dial up connection and long, image intensive pages take quite some time to load).  The fact that it ended up at 32k was purely coincidental - the page was 64k, I spun off the history section based on content and precedent, and the history page just happened to be 32k - it's not actually a target I was aiming for.  I was just trying to improve the readability and structure of the page.


 * The only sections I moved were the history section, and the equipment list. The history section was long, detailed, and only a portion had to do with the current state of the Iraqi Army as discussed on the rest of the page.  Beyond that there's precedent for national army's to have a dedicated history page (History of the British Army, History of the Canadian Army, History of the Polish Army, History of the Australian Army, History of the Hellenic Army, and so on and so on...).  There's also a precedent for equipment lists to be kept separately.  The format it was displayed in was a mess, and to do a reasonable job of it would have required far too much page real estate.  Do you really feel that such actions are unreasonable, not keeping with Wikipedia precedent, poor organization, or misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy? - Jonathon A H (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't feel such an action was unreasonable. You probably mistake my tone - easy to do on the net. Personally however I would have left all of the material together for much longer (though I've split off equipment sections myself, to keep main articles stable eg RGF). You touch however on something that does annoy me. Really I suppose it's not you, but the implicit assumption that we 'focus on the current state of the Iraqi Army' which would have been input by earlier editors. We should look at the overall picture, past, present and future, without overdue recentism. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

M113
Hi, I believe it is better to have an image that is relevant to the content of the adjacent text, a photo of the ACAV should be swapped with the image of the vehicle's interior. Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that the page already had 2 ACAV images, and no other clear images of the interior. A unique, informative image makes more sense to me than having a third image of something already on the page.  See the ACAV images in Vietnam section and variants section - both placed in logical sections. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

MOWAG Piranha
That Piranha 5 was copied from the MOWAG news page, not that other place you put. If you look, GDELS MOWAG GmbH call it a 5 not a V. I have a personal reason to know this stuff. I will check verbally asap but if GDELS calls it a 5, its a 5 not a V.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.196 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that it was from a press release after I deleted it, but regardless of the source, you didn't write it, and a copy is a copy, which is against WP policy. In reference to the name, General Dynamics UK (as do other non-European GD sites), Jane's, Army-technology.com, Deagel.com and other sources refer to it as the V, which is also in keeping with the naming convention up until now.  Probably best to wait and see what the final marketing is. - Jonathon A H (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Armed Forces - Current Turkish Military Budget (2010)
In response to your message, yes I did not read the links you offered as I am new to wikipedia as a member and did not understand why my link was not sufficient as a source for the topic of Turkish Armed Forces and Turkish Military budget. Now that you explained it is more clear what my mistake was and I apologize for that and my insistence on using the link as a source. The link that is used to identify the current Turkish military budget is not from CIA World Factbook and is cited from one website from a Turkish article. I keep checking the section of the Turkish Armed Forces and when I checked last year it was $30 billion which was a realistic number as I have been keeping a close eye on the statistics on the Turkish Military but when I first checked this year it was $49.06 first then $24 and now $11.06 which were all way off. The few sources that I found claimed it was over $40 so I used a link connected to wikipedia and was an extension of it as the best credible source which claimed it was $42.06 billion which seemed reasonable to me because the military budget has been increasing on a big scale every year. However I could use other sources to back up my claim. Could you please at least let me post the number given on the CIA website as the most credible source for the current Turkish military budget? Since you are asking me to check that source I think it would be acceptible to use it as the main source, however I will keep looking for more credible sources to use as the most accurate numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkYusuf1 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that that number isn't given on the CIA World Factbook site. You need to find a credible, first-hand source for the budget.  The AbsoluteAstronomy site is a mirrored copy of an old Wikipedia article which is not well referenced itself.  For example, the page claimed that all figures were from the CIA World Factbook, but they weren't - there were no links provided, and when you check the CIA World Factbook, very few statistics are given for national defense budgets.  You can see from how easy it is to change information on Wikipedia that you have to treat anything without proper citations as suspect and essentially unreliable.  I'm open to the idea of the budget being higher, but the only independent, first hand source I could find was the 2008 figure from that newspaper.  If you can find something from a reputable defense journal (IE Jane's), an official government publication, a well referenced research document, or a trustworthy, public news source, then by all means, please update it.  I tend to be fairly rigorous in wanting some sort of citations as people tend to let personal biases or nationalism interfere with honesty and accuracy in military articles (not, by any means, saying that you're doing that... but people will frequently pad budgets, equipment quantities etc to make their country's military look that much more impressive).  If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. - Jonathon A H (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand I just checked and saw the same thing, it only gives the percent of GDP used for the military as 5.3% on CIA for Turkey. I'm still looking for a credible source. Yes I only wanted to change the amount which was given as quickly as possible as I thought it was an unfair and inaccurate amount. Most sources I have checked indicate it to be higher than $30 billion that's why I kept on insisting on putting the $42.06 billion amount from the Absolute Astronomy website and I again apologize for my behaviour. I certainly don't let my nationalistic feelings to define my opinions and I know you are not implying that I am but I wanted to let you know anyway. I will find a credible source from one of the places you suggested and post it here and wait for your response. Thank you for your help and suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkYusuf1 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. We all make mistakes here from time to time, and I appreciate that you took the time to discuss it.  My apologies if I sounded a bit terse. Like I said, if there's anything I can do to help, or if you have any other questions or concerns, let me know. - Jonathon A H (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and I appreciate your help and understanding. I just found an article that claims it's over $16 billion and I put it up on the Turkish Armed Forces section however I mistakenly deleted the source for the percent GDP source in the process, I forgot what the website or reference was could you please put it back just for that part of the section, sorry about the mistake again, I will keep looking for new sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkYusuf1 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the other reference (for the record, if you check the page history, and then click the 'prev' (previous) link next to the most recent edit, the changes between the current and previous versions of the page will be highlighted, so you can spot things that were changed/removed/added.) I also took the liberty of putting the new reference in a reference template - it provides a little more information and looks a little nicer when people check the sources.  Information on citation templates and examples can be found here: Citation_templates.  Jane's is probably one of the more reliable and accurate sources you'll find since they rely on providing this sort of information as a core part of their business. - Jonathon A H (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'm still learning so please excuse my mistakes when I post them, I will read the section on referencing you provided as well. --TurkYusuf1 (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey I also updated the size of active number of troops in the Turkish Armed Forces from a website of an article that is referenced from several Turkish and Western newspapers and other sources. But in the process I messed up the nationmaster reference in place for the annual imports and exports section for reference 5 so I put it back but I couldn't figure out how to put it an article or reference format because when I pressed on edit beside the reference section at the bottom of the page it just showed me a blank place. I didn't have time to read the wiki hekp section you suggested but I will hopefully later on. Again sorry for the mistake, hopefully you can just put it back in the article/reference format like you did for my military budget section, thanks and sorry again for the mistake.--TurkYusuf1 (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When using So, using this example, we need only use the full citation once, and any other items that would use this reference would only need the abbreviated  tag since it will link to the existing reference and not create a new one.  This prevents unnecessarily duplicated or otherwise redundant references in the list which just create confusion, and may make an article look better referenced than it actually is.
 * In reference to the source you used for the current number of troops... I haven't reverted it, but I have added a 'verify credibility' tag to seek further opinion as the source quoted has a heavy anti-military tone and clear political biases. While it does cite the sources of some information, the troop levels are uncited, and given the nature of the article, and the web site, there's reason to exaggerate.  See Identifying reliable sources.  Not every source is a good one, unfortunately. - Jonathon A H (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand thank you for all your help and suggestions I really appreciate it and will try to adjust and learn to wikipedia and putting information with unbiased and credible facts and references from now on. I'm still looking for more sources regarding the military budget and will continue looking for a new more credible source for the number of active troops section as well. Thanks again and take care.--TurkYusuf1 (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I just checked and you put up the Turkish Defence Budget at $11 billion and when I checked the source you have, which was the Stockholm Institute I found that it was very inaccurate to the defence budgets of many countries when compared to other sources. I don't know if you are aware but according to most sources I have visited the US defence budget is more than $600, China about $85, UK $65, India $32 and so on, and while I haven't been able to find many sources that claim the Turkish Defence Budget to be more than $20 or $30 ore $40 like I claimed earlier, few websites claim it is at least $30, the Globalfirepower.com website says it is $30 for example and it uses the CIA World Factbook and the Library of Congress as references. I wouldn't rely on the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) as it has two different tables for the top 15 then another list of most countries which don't even match and when I checked other sources, their numbers for many countries like the ones I listed are way off. It's of course up to you but just thought I would ask you to reconsider using the SIPRI as a reliable or accurate source for military expenditures. --TurkYusuf1 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're mistaken, I didn't make that change. I made the last change to the talk page.  Recon.Army made the change.  Check the 'prev' (previous) links next to each edit on the edit history page, and you can see who made what changes.  If you check the talk page, you'll see that I'm trying to discuss it with him there. While most of globalfirepower.com's statistics are more or less correct, they're not entirely correct.  For example, they say that they get their information from the Library of Congress and World Factbook - but try finding it on either of those sites (and if you can find it, then you have an even better source). - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry if I sounded like I was criticizing you that was not my intention at all. I was just trying to ask you to reconsider using this as a reference, I'm sorry I didn't check who added it either, I assumed it was you. Please let me know what you decide to do in the end whether you will use that source for the military expenditures and Turkey or if you will change it or not. --TurkYusuf1 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Armed Forces - Active troops
Hi I just udpated the number of active troops according to an article from one of the leading newspapers and columnists in Turkey from "Zaman's". In the process I messed up links 2 and 3 but was able to undo link 3 and return the source you used for the abroad forces number in Cyprus but could not undo link 2, sorry again I tried undoing it on history of page but for some reason it wouldn't. Check the source I provided for the active number of troops from the article on the newspaper if it's good enough source or not then of course it's up to you to remove it or not based on the fact that you agree that it's a good source or not. Thanks and take care. --TurkYusuf1 (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heya. Today's Zaman is a workable source, I have no problem with it.  I did revert the changes for now (partially just as a way of fixing the mix-ups.  You're getting better with the references, though.), but I think the 700,000 is probably closer to being accurate when you factor in the gendarmerie. My only issue with it is that it doesn't give a breakdown of where that number is coming from, and the 200,000 difference between the LoC breakdown, and the 700,000 estimate is quite large.  The source I was using broke it down by service branch, but unfortunately didn't have numbers for the Gendarmerie or coast guard (the CG article indicates that it's pretty small - only a little over a thousand - but that's uncited, unfortunately so could vary).  Would you happen to know a good source for the number of personnel in the Gendarmerie? I also started a public discussion on the Turkish Armed Forces talk page if you want to answer there. - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know a great source for the Gendarmerie section of the army but I'll keep looking for it, how can I access the public discussion. Also thanks for your support, yeah I think I'm starting to get the hang of some things, like the referencing and stuff. Take care and talk to you soon. --TurkYusuf1 (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I found an article that indicates the numbers of all the Turkish Armed Forces, indicating the Gendarmerie is around 280,000 and the Coast Guard is 2,200. It's on page 26 of the article, check it out however it shows the number of the Army to be only 402,000, I don't know if that's accurate because most sources claim it is over 500,000. The article is in PDF format, I will send it to your e-mail. But it's link doesn't work so is there an e-mail I can send it to so you can check it out for yourself? --TurkYusuf1 (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like it's the same document that I was looking at, and used as a reference for the personnel on the Turkish Armed Forces page, so I think I already have it. Is it the 2008 Country Profile produced by the Library of Congress? And you're right, I missed the reference to the Gendarmerie and Coast Guard on page 26, so I'll add that to the total. I'm pretty sure the 402,000 figure for the Army is correct. There may be reserves in addition to the 402,000, but those are counted separately (there's a separate entry in the National Military infobox for reserves). The Library of Congress is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia (there's even a WikiProject page for incorporating the information from the country studies into articles), and it's produced by a government source from a neutral point of view, so I don't think there's any reason for the numbers to be inaccurate (beyond being 2 years old now - but active troop totals usually do not change dramatically in such a short timeframe outside of an active conflict). Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and add the Gendarmerie and CG information to the article. Many thanks for pointing that out. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No actually it's an article written by Lale Sariibrahimoglu, the columnist of Zaman which you have as a source for one of the statistics, everything you said is correct except it points out the Gendarmerie to be 280,000 and Coast Guard to be 2,200, but for some reason the link for it doesn't work, is there an e-mail here on your talk page or personal one that I can send it to? --TurkYusuf1 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The report I'm using also lsits the Coast Guard at 2,200. I generally prefer not to leave my email on public pages.  Can you tell me what the document is called, or where you got it?  I may be able to find it with some research.  The biggest problem is, though, that if it's not something you can reference on the site, then it's not a workable reference.  See: Verifiability Alternatively, maybe you could check the Library of Congress report to see if I'm missing something in reference to the Gendarmerie numbers? Two sets of eyes are better than one, after all. - Jonathon A H (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand, I didn't mean to put you in an uncomfortable position but I will send you the link try accessing it if not, just leave the Library of Congress statistics I will check it as well just to make sure but you probably didn't miss anything. I will get back to you soon with the link I was using and after I check the LoB. Take care and have a good day. --TurkYusuf1 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Stryker Re-write
I just want to congratulate you for the great job on the Stryker page.Vstr (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And a belated thanks from me also. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

ACAV
I just reedited the article of the M113 - I had the ACAV information in my head and googled it to find a source, and I found it confirmed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Republic_of_Vietnam This is not the first place I read about it, but the first which I found now on my search for references. But you see I did not touch the ARVN article thus far, so I did not just put it there. I will look for other references, but most articles and books about the time are US-centric and give little credit to the ARVN. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I found another source:

"On 30 March 1962, the first batch of 32 M113s arrived in Vietnam, and were sent to two ARVN mechanized rifle companies, each equipped with 15 of the APCs (M113s). On 11 June 1962, the two mechanized units were fielded for the first time. During the Battle of Ap Bac in January 1963, at least fourteen of the exposed .50 caliber gunners aboard the M113s were killed in action, necessitating modifications to improve crew survivability. Soon, makeshift shields formed from metal salvaged from the hull(s) of sunken ships were fitted to the carriers, which afforded better protection. But, finding that this material could be penetrated by small arms fire, subsequent shields were constructed from scrapped armored vehicles

The ARVN 80th Ordnance Unit in South Vietnam developed the shield idea further and commenced engineering general issue gun shields for the M113. These shields became the predecessor to the standardized Armored Cavalry Assault Vehicle (or ACAV) variant and were issued to all ARVN mechanized units Army of the Republic of Vietnam during the early 1960s. The ARVNs had modified the M113s to function as "amphibious light tanks"[11] and not as battle taxis as US designers had intended. Instead of an armored personnel carrier, the ARVN used the carried infantry as extra "dismountable soldiers" in an "an over-sized tank crew." These "ACAV" sets were eventually adapted to U.S. Army M113s with the arrival of the Army's conventional forces in 1965. The vehicles continued to operate in the role of a light tank and reconnaissance vehicle, and did not operate as designed in theatre. Still, the M113 could carry 11 infantrymen inside, with two crewmen operating the M113.

The U.S. Army, after berating the Vietnamese for flouting battle doctrine, came out with their own ACAV version. This more or less standardized ACAV kit included shields and a circular turret for the .50-caliber M2 machine gun in the Track Commander (TC) position, two M60 machine guns with shields for the left and right rear positions, and "belly armor" - steel armor bolted from the front bottom extending 1/2 to 2/3 of the way towards the bottom rear of the M113. The two rear machine gunners could fire their weapons while standing inside the rectangular open cargo hatch."

http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/M113A3_APC

-- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Third source, largely identical: The predecessor to the standardized Armored Cavalry Assault Vehicle (or ACAV) variant was introduced by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam during the early 1960s http://tripatlas.com/M113 -- Alexey Topol (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, quoting a wiki about a video game doesn't cut it for multiple reasons (if you consider that a good source, then, again, you haven't read any of the policy links I've given you). Even if mostly accurate, it's from a game and can't be trusted, also, it's from a wiki and can't be trusted.  This latter aspect violates Wikipedia's policy (See: Verifiability.  Also, using another wikipedia article as a reference is also a nono.  See: Verifiability. Notice that your tripatlas site is a Wikipedia mirror.  Also, the quote that you're using from the Wikipedia page says nothing about South Vietnam 'inventing' the ACAV, only that it was based on their experiences. - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not "from a game", but a special wiki which is written by people who obviously like that computer game but refers to the real world in many of its articles. Just by reading the article you can tell it's high quality. I will try to consult the author of that article and ask him for his sources. Apart from that, not everything is on the web. I did find jingoistic, US-centered pages, too, which credit various US regiments, like the Blackhorse Regiment, with the invention of the ACAV, but these claims are obviously false. The ACAV configuration and tactics blatantly contradicts US Army doctrine, which limits the M113 strictly to the role of a "battle taxi." It was developped by the ARVN, adopted by the US Army in Vietnam since it was so terribly effective there as to warrant a break of the official rules, and unsurprisingly it disappeared largely from US Army use after the Vietnam War.   -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wiki was created for a game. So yes, it's 'from a game'.  As I said, the information may be largely accurate, but it's prejudiced in that it was written for a game, and may or may not contain information relevant only to that game.  It cannot be used.  Did you, or did you not read the wiki guidelines on sources?  Official unit histories would be considered good references, though.  And if the information is 'all out there on the web', then it's your duty to find it and cite it.  As I said on your talk page, you're approaching the articles backwards.  You're approaching them with an opinion or agenda, and then, only when challenged, you try to find references to suit that opinion or agenda.  Find the information first, and write a factual accounting of that information in the article.  Simple, no? - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a game-wiki, but the information contained therein is both about the game and the real world. And there is no confusion about which information is in-game only, and which refers to the real world, either, if you're able to read. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're starting this again? Really?  It's only been, what, the better part of 2 months?  Okay, then...  It's still a wiki for a game.  Instead of questioning my ability to read, you should, perhaps, take a look in the mirror.  I'm quoting myself here: As I said, the information may be largely accurate, but it's prejudiced in that it was written for a game, and may or may not contain information relevant only to that game.  So yes the information is largely accurate, yes there's a tacked on section for the game, but it's a wiki, there's no guarantee that it will stay like this, or is entirely without error or fiction.  What's more, it's an uncited wiki article.  I can see that you still haven't read the various resources on what is and is not a good reference.  For all I know, you could have written that article (and no, I'm not seriously suggesting this, I'm just making a point). - Jonathon A H (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

CF-18 Hornet
Jonathon your explanation sounds entirely on the mark. I'll do a quick review of the source and we're home free. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for some tips you left on my talk page Apuman (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Populations of Egypt, Turkey and Iran for 2010
Hello Jonathan, how is everything going with you? Haven't talked to you in a while but I just came upon new information regarding the current (2010) populations of Egypt, Turkey and Iran when I was looking through the page on the "List of populations" on wikipedia then I searched some sources and on the CIA World Factbook came upon the new information added for the three countries I mentioned above and they are much different than the ones provided on the wikipedia page for populations but I couldn't figure out how to fix or update them without messing up the other countries so I was wondering if you would be able to do it for me instead if I provide you with the sources so you can check them and review and decide on your own, hopefully you will be able to. Thanks for the help and here are the sources for the countries I listed above that I would like you to change:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html

(for Turkey)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html

(for Egypt)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

(for Iran).

Actually here is the list of all the countries by CIA World Factbook

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

TurkYusuf1 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Indian Armed Forces
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Armed_Forces&diff=next&oldid=384392975 Almost, if not entirely, redundant with the infobox. Things like this go -below- the infobox anyway.] - I disagree, but I'm not going to make a fuss about it. Given that you are making (have made) a fuss about it, you may like to think of how to incorporate the unique information into the current info box. Or how to put it " -below- ". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of other examples (like most other national military pages). The first thing to do would be to edit the template so it doesn't 'float'. That would allow it to be placed below the infobox.  But beyond the tri-services flag, and one or two wikilinks, is there anything in the template that isn't already included in the infobox?  And there's room for additional images and wikilinks in the infobox anyway.  What does it really add to the page that isn't already there? I'm not 'making a fuss', just asking a rational question. - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I'm a little puzzled as to why there are two different infoboxes with overlapping, but not identical, information.
 * "The first thing to do would be to edit the template so it doesn't 'float'." - I'm not sure that I understand what you've said. By "the template" I'm guessing that you're referring to the one that I added? And by 'float'ing, I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that if you locate it in the text below the infobox, it displays itself to the left of the infobox, rather than below it?
 * If so, my opinion is that I think it would be more useful to add the "missing info" to the infobox, and dispense with the use of the template.
 * Your thoughts?
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk)
 * P.S. Somewhat tangential, but: Can you tell me, or point me to, some information about the technical details of 'float'ing? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect it was originally created for the page before the standardized, all-purpose military infobox was added to the page. Either that, or it was meant to be used on pages that were relevant to the Indian Armed Forces, but didn't require a full military infobox.  At any rate, the figures between the two should be synched on whichever has the best (in this case, only) citations - that would be the main infobox on the armed forces page.  Citations should also be added to the template.
 * As for floating, yes, that's what I mean. Usually elements in web design (anything that's encased in 'tags' - images, tables, divs, etc etc. The 'tag' represents an element) are vertically aligned by default, and don't share the same horizontal space.  When something is set to float, it will be allowed to 'float' on the same horizontal line as the preceding element.  If you look at the code used to create the table on the Military of India sidebar, you'll see this:
 * {| class="toc" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style=" float:right; margin:0 0 1em 1em; border:1px #798050 solid; border-collapse:collapse; background:#ffffff; font-size:95%;"


 * If the CSS style in bold were removed, the table would no longer float.
 * And I can agree with adding missing relevant information to the existing infobox. At first glance, I see that the coast guard is missing from the service branches, and the 'Triservices crest' doesn't appear anywhere on the page (though I have no idea how official it is).  If you look at Template:Infobox national military you can see that provisions exist for adding a second image to the infobox (again, it's arguable that, if official, the Triservices crest would be more representative of the Armed Forces Page than the generic seal which doesn't specifically represent the armed forces - but you'd probably be in for a fight if you tried to change it), and it's easy enough to add the unmentioned branch in with the other branches.  Hope this helps. - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Hope this helps" - It does. Thanks. (It also provided me with a chuckle and a smile!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DEVILS BRIGADE
Note from Mark - it reads in a very very misleading way, that is unnacaptable as a point of first verification for a busy reader. It reads exactly as if it claims to be the first special force, and is badly written. Hence I am changing it to a more workable and manageable first few lines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.39.67 (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Equipment of the Indian Army edits
The small arms like Zittara, A-7 aren't used by the India  Armed forces.Zittara as a matter of fact is not even with a single unit of the army.OFB is still considering on manufacturing them, they even removed it from their online product list.The PKM machine guns are used in the T90S,BMP-2S,T-72M1 as co-axial weapons and also by infantry as a general purpose machine guns though I still need to find some images to prove my point but they are used.Sorry but I have a tough time getting to know this User talk section in wikipedia. - Saumya Supratik (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.215.109 (talk)


 * Okay I will try to give an explanation whenever I do an edit.I have to do the following edit
 * 1)Change INSAS name to 1B1 INSAS for fixed butt variant and 1B2 for folding butt variant.
 * 2)Add PKM machine gun as both co-axial machine gun and general purpose machine gun.The PK is also ::being used in COIN ops in Kashmir by the Army/RR.
 * 3)Remove both the A-7 and Zittara, they are not being used by anyone as of now.
 * 4)Add the Micro-Uzi they are used by RR and Army SF.
 * 5)Add TATA Sumo to the light vehicles section.They are used as ambulances.
 * So can I make these changes - Saumya Supratik (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Patton tanks
I de-trancluded the template because the tank it is based on, the M60 Patton, is a Patton tank in name only. The Magach 1, 2, 3 and 5 are derivatives of the M48 Patton. Marcus Qwertyus   19:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And the Magach 6 and 7 are M60 based. The M60, in turn, was developed from the M48.  If we're going to be pedantic about it, it could be argued that any tank that isn't directly related to an M46 shouldn't be considered a 'Patton' tank, either. The M47 and M48 were no more related to each other or the M46 than the M60 is to the M48 and so on...  The M60 is considered by most sources to be part of the 'Patton series' if nothing else. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is why I'm trying to get Patton tank deleted. Just sharing a namesake and a few components doesn't make something a family. The T-90's roots can be traced all the way back to the BT tank but no one would call that a family. Marcus Qwertyus   19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is fine, but while the template and article exist, all elements of it should be treated equally until it's deleted as a whole. That was my issue with the edits.  If and when it gets deleted, then fine, but until then, the Sabra is no less a 'Patton' than anything else left on the list. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Myanmar Army
Hiya, thanks for help citing references at the above article, however, you seems to have remove chunks of equipments, such as MAV-1 and BMP-1 'etc. Could you let me know why? Okkar (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those particular entries were uncited - not just the quantities in service, but even their existence in the army of Myanmar's inventory, so I removed them pending citation. With a bit more investigation, I also suspect that the BMP-1s in question may have been misidentified Type 85 IFVs which are already listed in the inventory.  I searched a number of military balance files, the SIPRI trade register going back to 1950 and several news sources, and couldn't find anything supporting the supply of BMP-1s (or the other equipment removed) to Burma/Myanmar.  The MAV-1 is a bit more problematic due to the local manufacture, but there should still be some record of its existence outside of Myanmar. - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explantion! Okkar (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Combat vehicle
The vehicles in that list are all manned but it wouldn't make sense to rename the section "Manned armored fighting vehicles". Similarly, it also doesn't make sense to distinguish the vehicles as armored. Marcus Qwertyus   18:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that 'Armored fighting vehicle' is an actual, commonly used classification for these types of vehicles. - Jonathon A H (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And so is combat vehicle. Marcus Qwertyus   19:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But my original question was... Why change it? It fits, it's commonly used, and is no less appropriate. I was simply replying to the challenge that it doesn't make sense.  It does.  - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unarmored vehicles are part of the reason for merging the AFV into combat vehicles. If the combat vehicle section is expanded to the point where they need to be made a subsection of combat vehicles then great, it helps navigation greatly. Right now it makes sense to merge to the larger topic and not make an unnecessary distinguishment. Marcus Qwertyus   19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No exceptions exist in this case, though. It seems to be an arbitrary change.  You're arguing for a broader category where no need for a broader category exists. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Moroccan M1 Abrams
Sorry Jonathon A H, but it seems that your not agree that Tacom confirms the purchase for Fiscal year 2011 in its own page

explicetly wrote: Summary of Estimated Future Buys for Fiscal Years 2012 & 2013

TANK, COMBAT, FULL TRACKED, M1A1, Enhanced Configuration (Morocco) Prime Contractor: GENERAL DYNAMICS Contract is...:New Quantity or Service (FY12): 200

That means that a contract is done with General Dynamics for the suplly of 200 M1A1 for the Moroccan Army.

And that seems pretty explicit for me to understand that Morocco really bought it. So i'll add it till you understand that its true, or when I'd post pictures of the arrival of the M1 to Morocco. Its on EDA, there is not an oficial link till FY11 get online in So, keep erasing it and i'll keep adding it, "the blindes one is the one who dont want to see" (Spanish proverb)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrisius (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid speculative sales documents are trumped by US law. Please see the DSCA Arms Sales Notifications (The Defense Security Cooperation Agency - an official US Government site).  Congress must be notified about any pending arms sales, and they must be approved before the sale is finalized.  Please check the record - no such request has been made.  Morocco has purchased or investigated purchasing radars, missiles, helicopters, or other miscellaneous aircraft from the US in recent years, but no M1s.  And again, you're going off of one speculative sales document - where are the defense news agencies on this one?  None of them have announced this sale. None.  Don't you find that kind of odd?  Even the regular news agencies don't have a whiff of this one.  Please think this one through... - Jonathon A H (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I see, for you, the official web of TACOM, that confirms the purchase of 200 Abrams, is Speculative? TACOM is a part of US Military Structure. And the sold is in EDA (Excess Defense Articles) that only appears with the Current Fiscal Year, and 2011 is not published yet. See also that there is another way to sell surplus with the FMS, from the Pentagon only aprovation (but is not the case). So tell me...if TACOM is not "that" official for you, what it is? We are talkin about a purchase by EDA of 200 Abrams and 10 M88A2, wrote black on white.

These is TACOM: http://www.tacom.army.mil/main/index.html These is the link of the purchase (Part of FY12): http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/future_buys/FMSWRN.cfm

It's not speculative, and its wrote: CONTRACT is new. So there is Contract with the USG, and its by EDA, no DSCA, only EDA and FMS.

You see? no FY11 apears in EDA link: http://www.dsca.mil/programs/eda/search.asp

If you take all the info that I've posted all these time and you make a timeline of all that you can be as trustful with this as me. So, its wrote by the US Government that Morocco purchased 200 M1 Abrams and 10 M88A2...EXPLICtly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrisius (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm, yes, I'm familiar with TACOM. First of all, check the actual URL of your link. FUTURE BUYS, ergo not actually committed to sale.  Second of all, did you check the link I provided?  By law, the US congress has to be notified of, and approve of military sales to foreign governments.  Did you check the site?  Did you see the sale of M1s listed?  I'm afraid this does trump the site you provided as any sales without congressional approval would be illegal.  I'm not disputing that Morocco is interested in purchasing M1s, or that they've investigated it, or are currently pursuing it.  What I am disputing is that a sale has been finalized.  It has not.  It cannot have been finalized as the US congress has not been notified or approved of such a sale.
 * And if you follow the direct URL I gave you, you'll see that it's headed by 2011 sales, with the most recent entry dated November 17, 2011, which would be yesterday, so it's up to date and current. Again, please use some common sense here. - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, if you have any further trouble with these users, please inform me. I'm an administrator. Cheers and merry Christmas, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The format of historical military equpment lists
I have noticed you contributed significantly to "List of military equipment of the Canadian Army during the Second World War" which i currently re-writing. Do you have objections to the new page format?
 * Sorry, I've been away a little while. Regarding the format of the page, my contributions to it were primarily focused on improving its readability, accuracy (researching, adding citations, removing unverifiable/inaccurate material) and improving the overall aesthetics.  The biggest comment I would offer on the changes made recently would be that it would probably be better to keep the tables (number of columns, column types, widths, overall table widths etc - Much easier for the eye to follow, especially over a long table, therefor easier to read.  Also means you know what column you're looking at, even if the column header isn't visible) consistent.  Also, a lot of the information is generally unnecessary.  For example, is detailed tank information really necessary or relevant to its use in Canadian service?  The origin, years in service, and Canadian specific details were probably sufficient for most items. If a user wanted detailed information, they could follow the link to the actual article on the tank in question.  This goes for other categories as well.  Keep the purpose of the page in mind. Hope this is of some help.  Jonathon A H (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2014 (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) 14:01, 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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Medium Support Vehicle System
Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Medium Support Vehicle System. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ADATS shortdesc
Can you explain exactly what you meant in your edit summary? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The system was developed by Oerlikon Contraves, a Swiss company (now Rheinmetall Air Defence), and was never adopted in US service, so isn't an 'American' system. Jonathon A H (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)