User talk:Buckshot06

Adding of categories

Welcome to wikipedia but I see that you are adding incorrect categories to articles. There is no need for the Air Force unit category as the articles already have a category that is a subset of that. They are redundant and will need to be removed. If you have any questions please drop me a line. Thanks--Looper5920 12:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the curt opening message but I was hoping to hold you up from making anymore edits that needed to be reverted. Welcome to Wikipedia and it is always good to see editors interested in US military history. If this is your avenue of interest then I would suggest you take a look at the US Military Task force and join up if you think you can help us out. Again, welcome and if you ever have any questions please drop me a line.--Looper5920 12:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Office-of-cno2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Office-of-cno2.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

British 12th Infantry

Hello - thanks for the message. You're correct - just rewrite it in your own words and you'll be fine.

I somehow have a nose for sniffing out copyvio... I looked at the website you referenced because I was sure it was in the public domain, but it says (link is at the bottom of the page, under 'Crown Copyright') that people can download to a file or printer, but all other use is copyrighted. That conflicts with US government work product, which is entirely in the public domain. We get lots of nice NASA pictures that way, 'cause they technically belong to us (Americans) anyway. :-D Happy editing - Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 08:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're so right. I'll have to be more careful with British Government pages in future. Cheers

Hello

Hi Buckshot just want to say you're doing great work on modern British units. I work on their WWII history but know quite a bit about the British Army today. If you need a hand with sources or links to back up information you have just ask I might be able to help. Tristan benedict 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate. Do you mean the 5th Brigades (plural)? How many pages are there? By the way if you want to leave a message for someone use the discussion page and sign your name using the shift button and 4 tiles (that is the little squiggly thing on the hash key normally above the shift key). I do not know there real names! Hope you understood that. Doing that will leave a signature of your user name so others can identify you.

Back to the brigades though they are in a bit of a mess hey. What's happened is that the only list of British Army brigades has been with their WWII titles (British Brigades in World War II). I reckon we should create a list of the modern British Army brigade names, as they are used today. It would aid people using Wiki from the outside. The same problem exists for the WWI brigades. The other thing we could do is as you and I are doing already; amalgamate the different pages and have their whole history on one page, but I reckon that could get pretty big in the long run. What do you think? Tristan benedict 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday

I'm going to Boston (I'm a Brit) tomorrow for a holday, if I can get a flight, couldn't today to many damn terrorists! So if you don't get a reply for a couple of weeks don't take it personally. Tristan benedict 14:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5th Division

Ahhh. I see what you mean. You were talking about the divisions. Same problem applies. People have already merged 5th Divisional titles from different periods and put them under one name. Not good. What we have to do here is create three separate pages. The division during each war had complex histories, and then followed by it's post WWII history would make that one hell of a big page. Is the 5th Division in existence right now? Tristan benedict 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. Check out some of the US divisions - United States 1st Infantry Division for example. Long, detailed articles about the whole history of the Div without swapping through two or three pages. I think that's the model to follow, and its a logical expansion for what I've been doing with some of the regional brigades. I really think this is the way to go. Buckshot06 21:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm back. I see what you mean about US divisions. For the World War II and onward divisions i see no problem and think it's a great idea but be careful with the World War I divisions. They have there own task force and they might get a little touchy! The problem is that the divisions between the two wars are extremely different, they do not have continuos histories, except of course for the regular divisions. 5th Division is looking better. Tristan benedict 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikikampfgruppen!

Funny man. Thats good i like it. I had a great holiday thanks, first time in that part of the States. Great people in New England. Well as far as I know the Territorial Army divisions from 1914-1918 were disbanded within a couple years of that war, but the 1st Line divisions (that were created in 1907 or 1908) were reconstituted in 1920. The 2nd Line was reconstituted in September 1939 in reaction to the declaration of war. When the 2nd Line was reformed they were a little different from their WWI predecessors. Slightly different names and the regiments aasigned were different. Don't take this as gospel I'm still looking for information on them myself. You still having fun on Wiki? Tristan benedict 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What i was thinking though was that as a unit in existence we should use it's present emblem at the top and place past emblems at the parts where that history is told, if you know what i mean? I'm definitly coming round to your way of thinking with an entire history of a unit. Tristan benedict 11:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for it yesterday, found one but not in the public domain will try again now. Tristan benedict 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When i find one we can use I'll put it at the top of the Infobox on 5th Div page. Tristan benedict 10:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

you seem to have left me a note to get in touch with you (in my talk page), but no further contact details (email?). Or we can use the talk pages here in Wikipedia. Cheers, Dhatz 20:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JHC

Don't forget though that 2/3 of the JHC helicopter force is made up of units that are not part of the Army, and Land Command is an army formation. The distinction can be made by discerning readers who go to the JHC article. Hammersfan 11/09/06, 11.02 BST

Thanks

Thank you very much for the nice note regarding the Iraq and Afghan order of battle pages. I'd like to come up with a way to show the order of battle for all previous rotations as well, OIF and OEF, so your thoughts are welcome. As far as putting dates on formation changeovers, that's a good idea but I'd like to see an example of how you'd do that. Again, thanks for the compliments and I welcome any help you can give. Cheers, Dsw 16:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buckshot06, thanks for adding the command and control section to the Iraq order of battle page. I added some more information to flesh it out and changed the style to make it conform to the the rest of the page. I hope it's OK with you. Cheers, Dsw 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buckshot

You are doing a great job with the Divisions, I see the Wikikampfgruppe are not as bad as I thought. Tristan benedict 10:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page History of the Iranian Army on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Williamborg (Bill) 05:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Too fast. Apologies. Look forward to seeing how you incorporate. Williamborg (Bill) 05:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2/135 GSAB

Thanks Buckshot for your contrib to the 2d Battalion, 135th Aviation Regiment article. I appreciate another set of eyes. Two questions.

1) Would you please look at the command structure represented there in the milinfobox? I'm fairly certain that it is out of date, as I believe it was more current during the five months training stateside in Texas. I know the 2/135th reports to the 36 CAB, but now that the unit is in Iraq, I suspect the upper part of the chain of command is incorrect? If you know how the 36th CAB is tied in, I would appreciate it if you would modify the article.
2) Great work on the MNF-Iraq effort. Despite several searches on WP, I was not previously able to locate such an effort. Every time I searched for Operation Iraqi Freedom, I get linked to a big debate (and questionable on NPOV) of Iraq War. I could never seem to find a more detailed, an d neutral, military history of units going into and out of Iraq. So the question is: Is there a standard way to represent in unit articles a link to the MNF-Iraq article? If so, feel free to make the addition.

Keep up the good work. I have fond memories of my week on holiday with frequent evenings at the Dundry Royal British Legion, and my introduction to Skittles and a large group of fine folks. (I'm a Yank.) N2e 19:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot, thanks for your updates and work on the organization of the 2/135th. In response to my query, I received an email from the First U.S. Army Public Affairs office saying that "...related to the 36th CAB, but they are under the C2 of MNF-I." I don't know how to interpret 'C2 of MNF-I.' Do you? I can send you the email if that will help. N2e 04:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot, in response to your question on my talk page, I asked for more info, using exactly the text you suggested. Here is what I got from the LTC in the PAO (Public Affairs Office?) in response: "...MNC-I and MNF-I are two different echelons of command. MNC-I works fpr MNF-I and handles the tactical day-day fight against the enemy. The 36th CAB works directly for MNC-I." I hope this provides you with what you needed. N2e 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5th Division

Hey buck shot what do you think of the added info. Too much? Tristan benedict 11:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk

Meh, just removing the unsourced material is perfectly appropriate; it's his responsibility to provide sources if he wants it to stay.

If you have further trouble with the article, I would suggest leaving notes with the Maritime warfare task force and/or the Ships WikiProject; there will usually be someone around who'd be willing to help out a bit. Kirill Lokshin 01:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Task forces don't have coordinators, per se. LordAmeth, one of the project's Assistant Coordinators, is a member of the task force, but I'm not sure that his interests include Soviet ships. (More generally, there's nothing special about getting a coordinator involved here, as it's not a really complex disagreement; this is such a violation of basic policy that any outside editor ought to be sufficient in keeping the stuff out of the article until some references are forthcoming.) Kirill Lokshin 01:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
Working on featured-level articles? We have some advice for nominators, and an A-Class review process to help check high-quality articles.
Want to help with specific requests for assistance? Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Falklands War wikiproject

Creating a new task force is actually somewhat more complicated than that—there's lots of places where its name will be used in templates, for one thing—so I'd much prefer if we could decide on a name first and do the page shuffling after that. (There's also a Wikipedia:WikiProject War of the Pacific that can get absorbed into the same task force, incidentally.) The discussion of what the best name is has sort of died off and moved on to debating the Russian task force; but (assuming you're actually interested in participating), you can bring up the question again and we'll hopefully settle on the scope in short order. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Requested Articles Page

Please feel free to remove anything that's been created; we try to keep the list more-or-less current, but it's a massive task trimming things out consistently, and any help would be very appreciated!

I'll try to go over the article in detail again tomorrow, but, from a quick skim, it seems to be much improved. Kirill Lokshin 05:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot better than it was before. Aside from fleshing out the sections that still have those "Expand this section" tags on them, there are three points that I think could use improvement:

Reduce the use of bulleted lists in favor of prose or tables, as they tend to raise hackles at FAC.
Avoid making definitive statements about the future (e.g. "They will remain, to some extent, a military liability..." → "They are expected to remain, to some extent, a military liability...")
The "Bibliography" section should be titled "References" if the works were actually consulted as sources and "Further reading" otherwise.

Kirill Lokshin 13:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translating Military of Ukraine

I'd like to help out, but my Ukrainian isn't perfect, so it would take some time. I'm also busy in real life. I also want to devote some time to "tank" this week, since it's an official collaboration. But I could start translating the article a section at a time.

For starters, here's the contents. Let me know which sections you think are a priority. —Michael Z. 2006-10-25 03:27 Z

I've completed a rough paragraph-by-paragraph translation of the History section, at user:Mzajac/Military of Ukraine. This is just a draft—I'm going to ask someone at portal:Ukraine to have a look at it. Feel free to use or rewrite it as you see fit, but I suggest you wait a day or two until it's been reviewed. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-10-26 05:42 Z

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Mikhail Frinovsky

You classify Mikhail Frinovsky as a Military history.

Mikhail Frinovsky is not military figure. He didn't serve one single day in the army, neither as a private nor an officer; being a party political supervisor -"comissar"- doesn't count.

However he was a distinguished murderer, a "Deputy High Hangman" (until he reached his expiration at 1939), and as the great majority of these maniacs, he wore military outfit with a "Comandarm 1st class", an equivalent of 5 stars general, but this is not a military issue.

Two only things connect him with the red army: it was he who personally managed the great purge in the red-army top ranks in 1937-1938. And, when his own end was near, he was appointed "People's Comissar, Military Navy affairs". This does not make him a general either. It was just a Stalin's famous method to uproot a too powerful enemy and force him as far as possible from his devotees, so to make his liquidation easier. A some kind of home arrest, 600 km (the baltic or the Black sea) to 5000 kilometers (the Pacific ocean) from home !

AbuAmir 12:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Russian Ground Forces

I was wondering if you were also this 'Buckshot'. To clarify my comments on the RGF article, my main concern is the tone of the writing, and not the content which I think is well chosen and very interesting. At present much of the article reads like something from Janes Defence Weekly and probably needs to be tweaked to make it clear that it's an objective overview of the RGF, and not just someones opinion. For instance, "The Russian Ground Forces' overall performance in the First Chechen War was appalling" could be changed to "The Russian Ground Forces' did not perform well during the First Chechen War" - same content, but with less emotive words.

By the way, I note that you're working on adding historical Iraq War orbats. I think that I can put together something on the Australian deployments (other than the rotations of the infantry company protecting the embassy in Baghdad). Should it go in the Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq entry? Regards, --Nick Dowling 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind JDW - it's a good magazine, but is written in an analytic rather than encyclopaedic style. I've edited the article to add a photo and requested a small number of citations for statements which while doubtlessly correct, require a direct citation - these all concern statements about the general decrepitude of the Army (for instance, that the Army's high command doesn't know how many soldiers are in the Army). I'd be more than happy to check back in a few days. --Nick Dowling 07:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buckshot

Thanks for your message. There is also a page under construction about PRT's. Provincial reconstruction team. I saw that ISAF updated the "placemat" about the PRTs. You can find the map at: http://www.jfcbs.nato.int/ISAF/media/pdf/placemat_isaf.pdf?tsfsg=35d3e5568ff28b1b2f5479561dd4b5e9. Maybe the best thing to do is to bring information about the PRTs in a main article about PRT's, and who knows there will be an article about every PRT on itself? The Dutch PRT is called Task Force Uruzgan, their main base is called Kamp Holland. Their main base is at Tarin Kowt (1,000 - 1,200; sometimes they assisted their Canadian collegues at Kandahar province, or at base Martello (at the road between Uruzgan and Kandahar), and 200 at Deh Rahwod. 200 soldiers are at Kandahar HQ and airfield. Much regards from: Rob van Doorn 21:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC). And soon they will deploy their F-16s from Kabul to Kandahar.[reply]

At the discussion of the article about the war order of battle I added the contribution of the Czech Republic. Maybe there are things useful for the article? Cheers: Rob van Doorn 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hey Kirill

Yeah, that seems like a good approach. In many cases, the article just needs massive cleanup, but there are certainly some where it's not at all clear why the tag was added.

As far as the Red Army/Soviet Union issue, some thoughts:

Military of the Soviet Union is not the same thing as Military history of the Soviet Union. Most of the blow-by-blow detail, of actual operations should be trimmed in favor of material on organization, materiel, different branches, military bases, leadership, doctrine, etc.
The bulk of the material on the Red Army should be in the Red Army article, while the main Military article should be proportionately balanced among the various branches.
More information on nuclear armaments, early-warning systems, and other such Soviet capabilities during the Cold War would be good, I think; it's a major part of what's relevant to the military—and Soviet doctrine—generally, rather than being tied to a particular branch.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Overhere"

Thanks for the information Buckshot. I am not sure what you know about the disagreement between me and Mieciu, but I don't see how sources are the main problem. My statement, which I wanted to add, was basically bunch of other statements from the article put together. If that statement held new information, I can understand why he would be asking for sources, but it's been in the Kosovo war article for a long time. I just want to know how can Mieciu be asking for sources for my statement while letting the same information be scattered in the article with no sources.(If he deleted both claiming that they don't have sources -I would understand) But he is fighting to delete one while letting the other (which is practically the same info) just sit there.Overhere 01:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Greetings from Downunder

At this point, you can probably just submit it to WP:FAC and see what happens. Make sure you do it when you have a week free to respond to any complaints there, though. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Guards Divisions

Hello Buckshot - just picked up your message. Yes, I could do articles about the 4th Kantemirovskaya and 106th Tula Airborne reasonably quickly; other Guards divisions on which there's less (historical) source info available might take a bit longer. I might be able to work on the ORBAT for the Second Chechen War as well. Don't have a huge amount of time available to me at the moment, but will get round to the above tasks soon. Thanks. Benphillips (talk · contribs)

OK - here's a start on the Kantemirovskaya Division. Benphillips (talk · contribs)

I'll probably do the 106th Guards Airborne Division next; there's quite a lot of info out there on it, and the existing VDV article is quite good (I find). I'll get round to doing the sources for Kantemir soon - however, as I said in the edit summary, it would be good to try and sketch in the details of what the division was up to during the Cold War. I've found very, very little of any use through any of my usual sources on this; I suspect improvments here are down to, at the very least, someone who can read Russian more fluently than I.

I will, however, add the Cyrillic division name while I remember. Cheers Benphillips (talk · contribs)

Yeah, sorry - the phonelines, and thus the interwebs, where I live went down unexpectedly and remained so for 4 days, so I've only just got back online. I will push on with it when I get a chance, but may be quite busy over the next week. Will do what I can. Benphillips (talk · contribs)

Re: Axis Naval Activity in Australian waters

Thanks for that comment. I'll self-nominate it this weekend. --Nick Dowling 09:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If you'd like to vote or make a comment, the nomination page is: Featured article candidates/Axis naval activity in Australian waters‎ --Nick Dowling 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion

Thanks for the good suggestion. I will try to add information on books on Indian Navy. The first internet links were for people who did not wish to read books but would like to read it online. Chanakyathegreat 10:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unit

I was in 3/124th Inf., now 3/124th RSTA. We were a SECFOR unit in Iraq that attached to I MEF, 3ID, 1AD, 82nd, 101st, 5thSFG, 108th Airborne ADA, and a handful of other units. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morale's not bad. I'm out of the guard now, medical injury but I was only a little under 2 years from my ETS date and I wasn't reenlisting. Anyway I'm pretty sure the unit is going back to Iraq soon. They just got their guys back from Afghanistan. Once they finish the RSTA transition they'll be going back to the sandbox. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: U.S. military Eastern Front maps

Sure thing.

This URL is a must have: here

Before uploading though check if a map is not already uploaded either here or on commons :)

Cheers, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Strategic Air Command wings

What a mess! That article ought to be a list, at most—although a category would probably suffice—and the actual content for each wing should probably be in its own article; precedent is that wing-level units are eligible for their own entries. Let me know if you run into any problems! Kirill Lokshin 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no way to seperate the common history of a number assigned to a Bomb Wing, which later became an Strategic Missile Wing that was later designated as a Strategic Reconnaoissance Wing. user:R. E. Mixer 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06/Sandbox"

Just follow the same principles that are used for other units which change their name over time. The fact that multiple unrelated units had the same "number" is irrelevant so long as other characteristics distinguish them; for example, you'd have a single article covering the 5th Wing and its predecessors, as there's a continuous unit history, but separate articles for the 40th Bombardment Group versus the 40th Wing, because there are two different units involved. Kirill Lokshin 11:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{helpme}

what template do I use to indicate a page is too long??

Check out this search. I'd say {{Verylong}}--Commander Keane 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]