User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 12

Shaulay

It is the English transliteration of the Russian transliteration of Luthuanian city Šiauliai Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Special projects

Your last edit on special projects isn't very professional. I deleted it for that reason. Affiliation is a clearly defined English word. Regards Wandalstouring (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had an old version, good you removed it yourself. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence and related acronyms

I don't know if New Zealand has cockroaches as its particular annoying insect pest, but I believe someone in the U.S. government decided that if enough acronyms could be generated, it would keep out the roaches.

NOIWON is not strictly intelligence: National Operations and Intelligence Watch Officer Network. In the past, it was a voice teleconferencing link; might have video now. In addition to the 24/7 watch centers at various intelligence agencies, it has operators such as the duty officer at the White House Situation Room, and, depending on the particular Situation, they may include the duty officer at the appropriate regional or functional (Space, Strategic, Transportation, Special Operations) Unified Combat Command.

Just from memory, there's a description of its use in the book MiG Pilot by John Barron, which describes how NOIWON was used to coordinate U.S. response to Belenko's defection with a MiG-25. I can probaby dig up some more formal references. It's just a dedicated communications link, new only if you were not aware of the watch centers. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag and Assess 2008

Thank you sir for your help. Still I have more dout but my engineering exam is from 20 may upto 21 june so i will be away from wikipedia. So I will clear my dout when I will return .I am on a wikibreak :-(--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade offensive

You know, I really do not have a clue what you are talking about in your comments "on nothing like 'supporting' an Army Group was stated". I reverted that because the order of the words was reversed by DIREKTOR from my original. The fact is that all of Army Group E was trying to escape being cut off by the 3rd Ukrainian Front. In the "hew" version of history it is the two Red Army Fronts that are supporting the Yugoslav Army Group that was WAY off to the northwest, with only two of its Corps in the immediate proximity of the major part of the offensive until late in the operation when a third Corps joined in. Its the "tail wagging the dog", and you have just helped rewrite a little piece of history without so much as looking at the map just like the DIRECKTOR.
In any case, I am surprised by your attitude since it was you who once rebuked me for not referencing stubs, and here you are encouraging an editor of all of 1 month in completely changing the structure of a large article based on nothing better then a completely unreferenced, and seeming game dedicated online site. Whatever happened to your academic training? Then again, supporting "sources" like those of David Irving in the "Second Battle of Kharkov" probably have contributed to your perception of my trying to Russify English Wikipedia. I am quite frankly dismayed by the approach you take in regards to my editing as opposed to your own, however, what's new. You may as well also call in an admin because I will be reverting anything that is added to Belgrade Offensive by DIREKTOR which is not adequately referenced. You may also want to look at his editing history. Much "interesting" stuff here--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now aiding in possible copyright violation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selective reading

As someone pointed out in an unrelated case, the guideline is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Seeing how your moto is "anything goes" I will check your sources more carefully in future--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're in Military Technology's World Defence Almanac 2008

Oh dear, another one... Thank you very much for the information - and yes, you can help: first I need to know who is the publisher (I think it is Mönch Publishing Group from Germany: http://www.monch.com/index.php ) second I would be extremely helpful if you could scan the page and email it to me. I emailed you my email address through wikimail. Once again- thank you very much, --noclador (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a German-Italian, living most of the time in Austria... also I will write them in German - the Mönch Publishing Group is well known and more important German companies react much more sensitive to copyright issues than Italian companies (bless the swift German courts ;-). as for the scan: I emailed you my Austrian email address through the wikipedia option "E-mail this user", but if my email doesn't reach you this way: my wikipedia username noclador is also my email address @hotmail.com (I will not put the two parts of my email together, as I do not want automatic spam programs to find it ;-) thanks, --noclador (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress

Citizendium allows verifiable expertise as well as citations -- I was an employee of the Library of Congress for over three years, and was the network architect so actually was aware of connections to other libraries. IIRC, the British Museum may not be even #2; Harvard University Library is in the top 5. Don't have an immediate citation.

For something like this, CZ accepts the detail if supported by my verifiable resume, which they have for my editor status. I started off on MARC standards; Henriette Avram was my second-level boss, and I even taught Daniel Boorstin how to use our databases. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the list. Offhand, Library of Congress, British Museum, and Harvard University are up there. Johns Hopkins and Princeton Universities are very large. I can't speak to the size of the New York City public library system, but I know when the people at the Library of Congress didn't have something, that was one of the first places they look. LC, incidentally, maintains something called, IIRC, the National Union Catalog, which is a catalog of the things they do not have. Contrary to urban legend, LC does not retain a copy of every book copyrighted; they take about 20% of the material from the Copyright Office, and then various other institutions can have the leftovers. There is a significant cost in cataloging and other accession activities for individual books; in the mid-seventies, the average book cost about USD $50 in salary to catalog. They tended not to retain paperbacks, but if something went into the collection, it was put into a durable binding -- if they thought it had serious long-term value, they'd acid-neutralize the paper unless it was already archival quality.

There's also a question on whether you are measuring total number of items in the collections, total number of books, or of documents. Especially if the latter, while the Library of Congress has a large document collection, I have little doubt that in the U.S., the National Archives have more cataloged documents -- but do you count them as a library? While there are probably rather interesting things in the Vatican Library, I'm not sure how much physical space they have.

One oddity is that the Library of Congress isn't officially the U.S. national library; there are only national libraries in Medicine and Agriculture. Do you compare specialized libraries?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples' Militia

Why can't you just stick to editing something you know about?! You do not know Russian, you do not know Russian military history and yet you challenge me at every article! Народ (narod), the root of Narod-noye, means a single nation, and refers only to Russians. Therefore it is incorrect to translate it into either Peoples' or People's militia, because in the first case, in English, it means a militia of a "people" left undefined, and in the second case is equally incomprehensible.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel

I've just added my vote to keep this page. - Thank you. (Most appreciated.)

You don't seem to list 2-star reserve officers at all, as Cdr 2 Div isn't there. - True. I had difficulty finding out who Cdr 1 Div is. (Wilson has been in situ for nearly a year now, and many sources still say it's Ash Power in that position.) To date, I haven't been able to track down reliable info about Cdr 2 Div.
Incidently, although I think I've now got all the 3-stars, I know there are some 2-star positions that I can't find any incumbent info about (i.e. the known unknowns), and I still keep finding 2-stars I wasn't aware of (i.e. the unknown unknowns).

I don't know whether this is intentional or not ... - It isn't. I just haven't found reliable information. (Yet.)

Great work overall on the page; I hope people start copying the format; I'd love to see a similar page for the US, or UK, or China or Russia or France etc. Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 10:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please add "place-keeper" rows to the table for positions that you know are missing. (That way the unknown unknowns become known unknowns.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a thought. I'll look into it. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counterproliferation

(We are going through some halfway sane approaches on things such as counterproliferation and counter-proliferation, Cuban Missile Crisis and Cuban Missile crisis, etc.) Rather than argue the ambiguities, pick one and redirect the rest. We did pick transnational over trans-national to follow the actual CIA office designation).

As to China, I started working on the counterproliferation article yesterday, which I think was the last transnational article. Under the expertise model there, I did put in some observations about Chinese/Korean BW--it's nice when you know something is finally declassified and you can put some pieces together. The observation about Chinese beliefs, whether rational or not, about BW, I believe, is very much affected by WWII Japan.

I'll have to look to see if the repetition was still there; I was doing various cleanup.

There was some material I yanked about Russian chemical warfare -- there was only one part that had anything to do with CIA, as opposed to a Wall Street Journal rant about Bill Clinton. My yanking, however, was, again, expert opinion on CBR. First, the reporter seemed to think binary weapons are more horrible, when they are both safer in handling and easier to predict the delivered concentration -- but offer disadvantages for IEDs and the like. Second, given the Russian budget problems, I am hard pressed to see why they would be investing scarce resources in CW. Against who are they going to use these agents, which, in many cases, are less effective on the battlefield, per unit of weight, than PGMs in general and cluster munitions (about the latter, I tend more to the fix rather than ban totally, especially since the banning movement seems to have trouble distinguishing between antipersonnel and anything else that comes out of a dispenser). It's really amazing to find the amount of essentially irrational cruft that thing picked up at what I call The Other Place. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Steptoe notability

Please consider removing the notability template you placed on the Edward Steptoe article. The other tags are perfectly appropriate (needs to be expanded and needs attention by an expert). It doesn't appear that you do much editing in the field of the late 19th century Indian Wars in the western United States territories. The Steptoe story, coupled with the Battle of Pine Creek (which needs an article) was a national story at the time. The following biographical sources have entries on Steptoe:

Biographical Annals of the Civil Government of the United States. During its first century; from original and official sources. By Charles Lanman. Washington, DC: James Anglim, 1876.

Drake's Dictionary of American Biography. Including men of the time, containing nearly 10,000 notices of persons of both sexes, of native and foreign birth, who have been remarkable, or prominently connected with the arts, sciences, literature, politics, or history, of the American continent. By Francis S. Drake. Boston: James R. Osgood & Co., 1872.

Encyclopedia of American Indian Wars, 1492-1890. By Jerry Keenan. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1997.

Also, you might want to read the main source cited in the stub:

Johnson, Randall A., May 17, 1858. The Ordeal of the Steptoe Command (HistoryLink.org essay No. 8123)

I am totally unaffiliated and unrelated to the Steptoe line and am thus not personally invested in the gentleman. However, I regularly edit and update other articles specifically on the Native Americans and the so-called Indian Wars in that part of the country. In time, the Steptoe article will get my attention, but there are others who work in this same area who might be stimulated to get to this, hence, the creation of the original stub and the placement of useful sources to flesh out the article.

Thank you for considering my request. -- Quartermaster (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I went ahead and expanded the article (it's still brief) and included a portrait. I've deleted the existing notability, expand, and expert templates, but feel free to put one or all back. It should be more inherently obvious now why Steptoe is notable. Not that he's this huge figure in history, but he does appear in various sources (see above) and President Pierce did offer him the governorship of the Utah Territory to replace Brigham Young (see the article). -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of the Indian Navy

Hi there

You've hit the nail on the head. I was just speaking with a couple other users and admins about doing exactly what you propose and upgrading the scope of this article to cover the entire Naval Air Arm. Will work on it this weekend. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the edit to the article name. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Discussion and categories

I agree with your recent musings on the category subpage, I think they are sensible. I agree with Roger however that you shouldn't reply point by point to Mrg, that just leads down a bad road, one that has been well trodden before! Get your point across, then leave, it seems the most sensible approach. If consensus cannot be reached, and several editors continue to disagree, then yes anyone going against consensus would be blocked and reverted. We have already had enough hot air over this. Personally, I haven't made one substantial mainspace edit in the whole week because of the time-sink that this discussion has become.

On another point, this talkpage really needs to be archived, 186kb? Wow! ;) Best regards. Woody (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade Offensive

My apologies. I HAD reverted your edits believing they were simply reverts of DIRECTOR. I will replace them in a couple of minutes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governmental impact on science during WWII

Please do not delete this article. It is an excellent platform for developing a very good general article that has the potential to tie up several areas in the scope of the Second World War. The article was referenced, but needed a reflist template. I gave it some structure by rearranging the text blocks; just like helping 1st year undergrads with essays--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re

I've stated my opinion on the RfC, one would be hard-pressed to find a simpler name for a military organization. There are, as always, nuances in translation, but these are simply minor differences. "National" is never used to translate "narodnoe" in USSR military use, "People's" is always used. As we all know, English is a language with very many synonyms and "narodnoe" can have both meanaings, but in this context there can be no doubt that "People's" would be the far better translation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you may want to chime in at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Unrealiable prodders". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special projects

How's it going? Satisfied with progress? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Think of archiving this page? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWII vision

Howdy Buckshot06. I'm actually just putting the finishing on the article to get it to my/our vision (need to get the last section approved). After that, what I think it'll need is another peer-review before I try to get it FA'd. Essentially, I've nearly got the framework and content, but I need some extra eyes and opinons. Oberiko (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikichevrons with oak leaves

For your consistently excellent edits and your continued commitment and tireless efforts towards improving the quality of articles pertaining to military history, and in recognition of your efforts towards maintaining the military history project, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, Woody (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet navy

Hi, I want to know some facts about Soviet navy. I have heard that Soviet navy had the largest submarine force over 500 submarines while comparing 130 of US. Can please tell something about this? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking because I want to know and since you are a member of Soviet and Russian military wikiproject, I hope you are the right person for this question. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livenka & Nikolayevka

OK, I though it was going to be simple (since someone helpfully provided Livenka's coordinates), but it did not really turn out this way. The good news is that I was able to find both Livenka and Nikolayevka, though.

First of all, I should note that my sources on Belgorod Oblast (where Livenka is and Nikolayevka was located) do not go back any further than 1959, so that's what I had to work with. In 1959, there were two Livenkas in Belgorod Oblast—one in Korochansky District and the other one in Nikitovsky District. The one in Korochansky District, however, was a khutor (a very small village), and it no longer exists (as of at least 1992). So my second guess was Livenka in Nikitovsky District, which at the time was a selo and the administrative center of that district's Livensky Selsoviet. Currently, it is a selo and the administrative center of Livensky Rural Okrug of Krasnogvardeysky District of Belgorod Oblast. I can tell for sure that there was never a city or a town in Belgorod Oblast called "Livenka", so this one must be the right one.

As for Nikolayevka itself, my 1959 source shows one in Nikitovsky District (in Livensky Selsoviet, within one kilometer of Livenka), which further confirms that Livenka identified above is the right one.

As a result, I created a dab page for all of the Livenkas I could find and straightened out the link on battle of Nikolayevka as you requested. Please let me know if you need anything else or have questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here is this stub to kill off a red link. Enjoy!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's your call; I can't impose my views on you :) If you must know, however, I strongly opposed at first, but then the proposal was revised to include more human oversight, so not only that won me over, but I also agreed to participate... eventually (see above). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposal to create roughly one million (?) town stubs

Proposal? It is being done for at least the last week.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]