User talk:Noclador/Archive 6

Hellenic Air Force
Here is a link that presents the current orgasization in english, and in greek. I am not sure if you are interested also in graphics of Air Forces, but if so I think it will be helpful. Papastis (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Noclador, in the following days I intent to rewrite the history section of the article about the Hellenic Army based in a variety of sources. One of them in particular is a book published by the Hellenic Army's History Department entitled History of the Hellenic Army 1912-1997. It has some graphics conserning the organization of the Army in different chronologies (1926,1939,1940,1941,1946,1950,1967,1974), would you be interested in recreating those, if of course you had the time? Thanks for your time anyway. Papastis (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian forces
hey,

for lfca and 33 brigade the comunication regiments have now joined the actual land enviroment so they are now included in the brigade and are not support units —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.188.223 (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

4ID (USA) current structure
Can you explain why you removed the combat aviation brigade from the section per Current Structure: update structure (no Aviation Brigade anymore for the 4th Inf. Div.) site still says its assigned.--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Italian Army

 * User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso edits are explained, and do not appear to be vandalism. Please stop making such accusations, and discuss your issue on the article's talk page instead. If you have proof that this user is a vandal, please present that on the article talk page. Further actions by you such as this will be taken up with an admin. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your email
Thanks for your email. There's a bit of a misunderstanding here, I'm afraid. The situation here is that, as a separate article dealing with the order of battle exists, the main Italian Army article needs only a summary of the other article's content. How this works in practice is explained in Summary style. I can see from the article's history that you've worked long and hard on this sio I can understand your sensitivity. Please accept my assurances that User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso is not vandalising this but following normal custom. In the circumstances, it is probably best if you stopped reverting.

All the best, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Copied from User talk:Roger Davies
 * I saw a huge orbat somewhere yesterday (1986?), other than in the Italian Army article, and assumed (wrongly, it seems) that you'd broken it out to a third article. I don't think generally that orbats sit well in narrative articles (be they about formations or battles) as lists interrupt the flow too much. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, Roger, I believe I have to correct you there. We have a list of regiments at the subsidiary article, while Noclador is concerned with the chain of command and dispositions - 'Order of battle' - of the Army; two different things. Noclador, the overweightiness of the main article is correct, but you are also correct. The precedent for dealing with this situation is pages like List of formations of the Turkish Army 2008 and Structure of the United States Armed Forces - split them away separately. Don't fight the reversions, but split away a page maybe at Chain of Command of the Italian Army 2008 - include the date, because these things are always changing and it is better to start a new page than have it updated in some sections and not in others - and then link it back into the main Italian Army page. Hope that helps, and don't bother breaking your 3RR limits for this. We can fix it! Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, slightly crossed wires but essentially pointing towards the same conclusion. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you and Eurocopter are here; and I'm very happy indeed to back out leaving it in your very capable hands. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Buckshot - that is exactly what I tried to tell everyone- they are two different things. Rather than splitting the OrBat away I would prefer to make like in the German Italian Army article, were only the Brigades are listed (but each brigade has its own article)... as of now only 3 brigades have their own articles, so your idea to split the OrBat away into an own article is at the moment the only feasible solution. I will start that work right away (hoping that it doesn't get deleted by someone to eager...) --noclador (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I also said on the article's talk page, the current list of active units is only a list, whereas the OrBat section represented the actual subordinations of units (so, I agree with Buckshot here). --Eurocopter (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Noclador, by looking at DOTMILPF (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Material, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities) plus history I think you might agree that a full listing of an ORBAT isn't really justified on the main army page. Each of those sections deserves a full discussion, and then there's all of an army's history to add too. Anyway, United States Marine Corps is our template for this, being an FA, and Russian Ground Forces is also a good model, being de-FA'd for reasons that had nothing to do with its overall structure. I should hasten to add that the listing of units at RGF only covers manoeuvre units and only to division/brigade level. Thus I don't believe the German wiki article is a particularly good model. I should say Noclador that I'd urge you to put a paragraph of explanation at the top of Operational Structure of the Italian Army, which would prevent context notices being added, and it needs to be added to Category:Orders of battle. Buckshot06(prof) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What was your source for the 1984 Italian Army order of battle, by the way? Would you mind adding it, please? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 20:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ORBATs (British Army)
The only changes that will have taken place will be the rotation of light infantry battalions. For the sake of completeness, I have listed the entire Regular Infantry below, with as best as I can determine their current postings:

And yes, by all means redraw the maps. Hammersfan 07/01/09, 10.14 GMT
 * I would say with the maps that I think you've used too many colours that look similar, so it may be difficult to tell certain areas apart - I'd suggest using as many contrasting colours as possible. If you don't have enough in the standard pallet, then make some up. Hammersfan 08/01/09, 09.50 GMT

Halo
Ich lerne Deutshe und ich habe ein frage. Wo ist die "Commons". Bitte lassen Sie mich wissen, wenn ich helfen kann mit jedem Artikel. Alles Gute.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for a warm welcome.Serbian Defense Forces (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Help please: Milhist A-class medal
I'll run them past my colleagues at Milhist coordinators but I'm sure they'll be delighted. Once they're approved, if this is okay with you, I'll rename the files and delete the draft ones. Thank you, once again, with your help: I have been delighted both by the results and by how easy and pleasant it has been to work with you :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lovely! Thank you, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons
Just an update, it seems that even Commons admins cannot move files on Commons (they're waiting for the developers to implement this. I though it had already been done). May I ask you please to do the housekeeping for me on Commons? This is easiest because you actually created the files and I didn't :)

This involves re-uploading the new graphics to the following locations. The idea is also to overwrite the first existing file with a new image so we don't need to update the awards so far given out manually. The existing names and the preferred file names are as follows:

Image:Mil Hist A-Class Bronze Medal (variant).png > Image:WPMH ACR.PNG

Image:Mil Hist A-Class Silver Medal.png > Image:WPMH ACR (Oakleaves).PNG

Image:Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal.png > Image:WPMH ACR (Swords).PNG

Image:Mil Hist A-Class Gold Medal - Gold Oak Leaves.png > Image:WPMH ACR (Diamonds).PNG

It would be good if the files under the old names could be marked for author deletion to make sure that the duplicated uploaded versions don't get deleted instead.

Sorry to lumber you with this. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 20:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ritten
Hi, now all the wikilinks point directly to the current location of the articles.-- Suppar luca  08:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Icsunonove
Perhaps it is failing to assume good faith, or perhaps it is simply moderate incivility, but I don't see a personal attack in there. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, even while that may have not been a personal attack, his response on my talk page most definitely was. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS You were told to take it to ANI ...the continued re-filing of WQA is disruptive...( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Census 2001
Well, you wrote that you don't care about the frazioni, so I applied the convention that I think is the best: [Italian name] ([German name]). I probably don't have the will to google the names of all the frazioni (especially because there's not only google), and I also don't care much.-- Suppar luca  12:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Census data for Niederdorf
It's unsourced. It's certainly not from ISTAT. Where did you find it?--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Hi, please read the naming conventions, in particular point 3: you should use the same names you see in the title of the articles when you refer to a place, so in this case you should use the names "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" for the province and "Bolzano" for the city.-- Suppar luca  13:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A new design project?
I have been trying to get a logo designed for the Milhist newsletter for several months now. There is some discussion here here. Is this something you might consider tackling? Well, you did ask :) -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 23:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oswald von Wolkenstein
Hi noclador, ich habe dir auf meiner Diskussionsseite geantwortet. Grüße --FordPrefect42 (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lichte & Nicolussi-Leck
Thanks for that, dont know how that happened Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Romanian Land Forces
Hi Noclador. Some time ago I have added a few changes to the Romanian Land Forces structure as well as the graph made by you. Sorry for not going through the normal procedures - but could you possibly make those changes as per. Thanks, 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot Noclador. I think your contributions to such articles are appreciated by everyone involved with your work. Best. Dapiks (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Adesc aut
I moved your discussion with Icsunonove about the Ladin name to Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen/Naming, hope you don't mind.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Party names
Along with Nightstallion, we decided to leave only those articles with Englih names, mainly because they are frequently referred with their Italian names. I actually proposed "Forward Italy", but Nightstallion opposed it and then we decided together to move also the leagues to the Italian names as "lega" and "forza" are almost synonims ("forza" means also "force"). With the Greens of Alto Adige/South Tyrol there is no such problem and the translation "Greens" is not problematic. If you want, ask to Nightstallion. Maybe he's changed his mind over "Forza Italia" and "Lega Nord". My opinion is anyway to leave things as they are: translate always, with the exception of those names which are widely known in English with their name in the original language. Take the issue to User talk:Nightstallion, please, if you want. --Checco (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'm happy with the new title: definitely better that the previous Greens (Province of Bolzano-Bozen)! --Checco (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ps: When many parties have the same name in English, we usually put the country or the country subdivision where it is active between brackets : see Democratic Party (United States), Democratic Party (Italy), Democratic Party (Luxembourg), Democratic Party (Mendoza), etc. --Checco (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! --Checco (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

South Tyrol and archaic names
Noclador, I thought we agreed to use a single talkpage for Tyrol-related naming disputes. I moved the discussion to Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen/Naming, you should use this page in the future.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Image compression
Hi noclador! I am wondering how you reduced the size of your IDF diagram to about 560 kB. While mine is slightly larger in resolution, it takes up a whopping 4.85 mB. Here's the file (direct link). Can you do something about it? Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 23:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! I will try to do something about it. As it stands now, the image doesn't generate thumbnails, which makes it unusable. Doesn't your image also have more than 12.5 million pixels? Anyway, what do you think of the graphic itself? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The 12.5 MP limit only applies to PNG files. I tried to upload a GIF file but it simply wouldn't show the thumbnail. Thanks for the tip, and I'll keep trying. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A favour?
Is there any chance you could convert this file File:US-O12 insignia.svg to gold stars please with a transparent background? If you are unable to do svgs, a png would be fine. The best final filename would be File:Milhist coordinator emeritus.png or .svg. If this is a problem, please let me know, I'll entirely understand. :)) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Goldier would be good :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried it small, and it works fine! Thank you very much for doing that, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking thorugh the file history for the golden 6-star insignia you made (it looks awesome by the way, nice job) and noticed that on Roger Davies' talk page you vioced concern that the color may have been too yellow. I thought I would leave message for you that if you wanted to try and get closer to a gold color you may want to look at File:General of Armies insignia.svg, a golden 4-star insignia used by General Pershing. Its got a heavier feel than the current version, but may be closer to what you were originally trying to do with the yellow. 129.108.97.96 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. I felt the suggestion was warrented since you seemed to be searching for something less yellowish, and I remember from reading through the article on John J Pershing that he (Pershing) choose to were four gold stars after his promotion to General of the Armies. I sensed that the gold used there for the four star insignia was what you were shooting for with the six-star insignia, so I decided to suggest it to you and see if that was in fact what you were trying to do. Also, sorry for posting anonomously earlier, I assure you that I wasn't trying to my identity or anything. I do that from campus occasionally when I need to be on wikipedia for school work but don't want to log in out of concern that I may get interested in something on here and disregard school work for Wikipedia work. One of those mental reinforcers, you see; those without accounts don't have watchlists and can't edit certain pages, which makes contributing to the wiki when your trying to work that much harder and by extension making it that much easier to focus on Univeristy of Texas @ El Paso related homework :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Moelgg
The correct spelling IS Moelgg, as you can see from their official website, which is also in German. It's the second time I have to revert such an improper move. Ciao and good work. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mhm... I also missed your post in the talk page (sorry: honestly at first I thought you were the usual semi-vandal who has learnt how to make a username to avoid antivandalism). I am starting to agree with you. Just the strange thing for me is not that the website address is "moelgg.com" (that's normal for all German names), but that they DO call themselves "Manfred e Manuela Moelgg" there. Se for example this page written in German ; I think if their name would be "Mölgg" they would at least write it correctly when using German. Notice that they could be Ladin, so "Moelgg" would be the correct original spelling, in turn turned into "Mölgg" by German-speaking bureaucracy in South-Tyrol. Auf wiedersehen und gute arbeit.--&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: another argument. Are you perhaps going to write article on separate units (regiments, battalions etc) of Italian Army?
 * Honestly I'd prefer to receive a comment from the brothers about why they wrote it as "Moelgg" in the German version. Ciao! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)