This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks! I was impressed and moved by you appreciation of my work. Thanks again! --Checco (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Noclador,
once again, wonderful work on the Structure of the Argentine Army. However, there is one mistake. The 12a Brigada de Monte in Posadas is not a Mountain Brigade. "Monte" does not mean "mountain" (the spanish word here is "montana", see 5th and 6th Mountain Brigade), it means more something in the sense of "mounted". There is no literal translation. I suggest you translate it as "Jungle". Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.139.123 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Noclador Excellent work. I linked it from my site www.saorbats.com.ar , hope you don´t mind. would also like to help in other south american orbats. Rgds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.173.129 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Great work Noclador! Here are the answers for you:
First, you misunderstood me about the Marine infantry – There is no Marine Infantry Regiment but only Marine Infantry Btn. Second, here are the names of training centres if you can add them: ‘’’Army’’’ – Training and doctrine command “Fran Krsto Frankopan” ‘’’Air Force’’’ – Air Force Training centre “Rudolf Perišin” ‘’’Navy’’’ – Navy Training centre “Petar Krešimir IV”
Also, the names of battalions of Guard brigades are left in Croatian. Do you think they should be translated to English (in order of appearance Kune = Martens, Sokolovi = Hawks, Pume = Pumas, Tigrovi = Tigers, Gromovi = Thunders, Vukovi = Wolves, Pauci = Spiders)?
Something about SF units: I think Special forces & Commando ban should be renamed to Special operations Btn since this is right translation from Croatian (and we have it under the same name on Wikipedia). Military-inteligence Btn are also considered to be special forces - maybe if you can just adapt the syimbol? And we have another SF unit – in MP Regiment there is Company for Special Purposes (AT...)
And here are the schemes of this two units (they fall under direct command of General Staff, like two additional branches). I hope I managed to translate this to English correctly.
Support Command (Zagreb)
Croatian Military Academy „Petar Zrinski“ (Zagreb)
This would be about all for now. If I find some more information I will shere it with you.
Looking good. Military inteligence Btn is similar to Serbian 72. Recon-commando Btn. They do operate UAVs but also are a recon unit. Nevermind, lets leave it this way for now.
Ro0103 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
What can I say - THANK YOU --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It turned out that this brigade has one more battalion - Armoured Battalion in Gašinci. According to the Armoured forces development plan, there were plans for Brigade to have 4 main battalions: 2 mechanicized btn (Sokolovi and Pume), and two armoured battalions. During the defence reforms, all documents mentioned this two mechanicized btn and tank btn Kune, and it seemed that the fourth btn was abolished. In today's issue of Hrvatski vojnik magazine (issued by Croatian MOD), there is an article about Armoured Btn. They are armed with tanks M-84 and M-80A APCs. So, if you can edit the OrBat of Croatan Army... Thanks! Ro0103 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) was a component command of the USSOC, but I don't see it listed on your chart. Am I mistaken?Pk52 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand now, thanks. One other question, On your chart you include SF in the 160th Spec OPs boxes. I thought only Green Berets could be labeled SF, with all others being labeled SOF's, like you did in the Ranger boxes?Pk52 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
On a non-US Army org chart I wouldn't have an issue with what you did - however, in the US Army, the only forces allowed to wear the coveted "Special Forces" tab are the Green Berets. The 160th are not Green Berets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pk52 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Some day, if you have time, it would be nice if you would expand the chart up one more level to show the USSOC and its additional Special Operations units like you listed. Maybe post it on the USSOC page. Your work is exceptional, by the way.Pk52 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I answered a couple of times - both times the answer disappeared. Did you ever see my answer?Pk52 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with your new templates, since they give a location in a not-so-clear and dark map, which, above all, does not give an immediate localization of the site in Italy (consider position of Trentino/Alto Adige is surely not so known to foreign readers). --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you still involved in sockpuppet-related work? I know of a particular user who is disruptive and been blocked several times, and I believe he has been editing anonymously with a few different IPs as well to help cover his tracks. His contribs are similar (identical, in a few cases), and he uses a similar style of speech in his talk page contribs and edit summaries, to include threats of reporting "violations" and a wild misunderstanding of policy in his favor. Would this be a sockpuppetry case, or simple admin action? Thanks. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Can't help you much with the Ukraine but like your Russia graphic. What is your source for the Russia information? Buckshot06(prof) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
See what you mean it's added to my watch list --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I have added two sections at the end of the Carabinieri talk page in order to stimulate discussion and hopefully bring about editor concensus. Hope you visit and comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carabinieri Bibiki (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your comments on Hersfold's talk page [1]. I would also like to propose that we go for formal mediation on our Carabinieri dispute over my latest edits [2] Cheers! Bibiki (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Noclador, I hope you're reading this! Please let me know if you are willing to go through the formal mediation process with me regarding our dispute. It takes two to tango! Cheers. Bibiki (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Noclador. The MedCab mediation has started. Please refer to the Carabinieri article's discussion page to present your arguments. Cheers! Bibiki (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Noclador. After having tried all other available options that I could think of without managing to reach consensus with you regarding our edit dispute on the Carabinieri article I have filed an arbitration case: [3]. I am looking forward to reading your statement that you are required to fill in on the same page. Best regards. Bibiki (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for your comments; I’ve replied there, (at last!) Moonraker12 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Um, hey is there a reason you moved Tunguska to Tunguska (disambiguation)? Disambiguation pages are normally kept at the main title unless something else belongs there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If I can eavesdrop here; the event occurred near Lake Cheko, in the Evenkiysky District. I've added the locations, but there's not much else to say. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Noclador. Just a quick note about your use of Twinkle rollback at Carabinieri - it looks like you were using the "vandal rollback" option to revert the edits of User:Bibiki. Having looked at these edits, I don't believe that they were intended as vandalism and were made in good faith. To avoid misunderstandings, could I ask you to use the "good faith" or "normal" rollback options with Twinkle in these cases so that you can provide an edit summary? Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
See
and
Ian Spackman (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a request that Meran be moved to Merano, at Talk:Meran#Requested move to Merano (5 July 2009) Ian Spackman (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
((unblock|Your reason here))
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
Noclador (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wrong action by the blocking admin! a) 6 reverts??? where did he get that number? I made 6 edits during the entire day and the first two of these were to bring the article in line with the agreed standard format after a move discussion. Both those edits (and one by another user) were then reverted by another editor, who refused to accept result of the move discussion see also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pmanderson b) 8 hours after the attempts by said editor to force through his POV against consensus, an admin comes along and blocks me, when there is no reason to revert on the article anymore, as the only goal of said editor was to file this report! as evidenced by his threats, when he was told to please cease his POV campaign [7] c) I also gave a comment on every one of my edits explaining my reason to restore the article version created by user:JdeJ please keep with the standard format used for all 116 comunes! stop changing the standard format and accept that there was a move in line with the naming convention. please move on and let this discussion rest and went to the articles talkpage to explain my reason, which was ignored by the user, who kept pushing his POV until I had reverted his various attempts at pushing through his POV 4 times, so that he could file the report at 3RR d) I believe my actions to be justified, as the editor in question refused to accept a move done by an admin after a month long discussion, pushed POV, refused to discuss, and showed bad faith by insulting and threating other user (see ANI post above)
Decline reason:
Unambiguous 3RR violation. Pmanderson's edits may have been contentious, but they were not vandalism; hence, no excuse for the edit warring. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This is just to notify you that I have taken up the request for mediation for Carabinieri, please have a look at the article's talk page. -- QUANTUM ZENO 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be more than 24 hours since the 24 hour block was imposed. Shouldn’t the notice be removed? Or am I missing something? Ian Spackman (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. I was wondering where you found the graphics for the ghost units of the Fourteenth United States Army when you created them (50th US Infantry Division, 55th US Infantry Division, etc). I've been looking for sources related to those divisions for articles but I can't find any with those graphics. -Ed!(talk) 03:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Noclador, hope you're well. What's your source for the new list of units for the division? Please add this. Best regards Buckshot06(prof) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Noclador,
I've been putting together some information on the sizes (number of men) used in modern (post Second World War) armies. Can you point me to any sources about the evolution of the various Italian infantry squads (mech squads, bersaglieri etc.) between 1950 and 2000? I've tried Google but there doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion on the internet about the historical organization of the Italian infantry, other than a bunch of articles about the World War era. Thanks and Cheers W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am looking for some help and remembered your excellent Division, Army formation diagrams. British Army during World War II has sections on Infantry Divisions and Armoured Divisions and it was suggested during a peer review that line diagrams of the divisional formation would help in understanding. If you could possible assist I would be grateful. not being at all artistic in this respect I would not know where to start myself. If you are able to assist all the info required I believe is in the section text, but if any clarification if required just let me know. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Noclador, I was wondering if you had time to update the structure of the Romanian Land Forces at [8].
The changes would be:
DIVISION 1 "DACICA"
1. Change the 495th Inf. Battalion CLICENI from a paratrooper battalion to a regular inf. battalion (the paratrooper companies in the battalion have all been disbanded)
DIVISION 4 "GEMMINA"
2. Change the 4th Engineer Battalion "DEVA" to the "53rd Engineer Battalion "DEVA"
3. Change the "69th Mix. Art. (Ter) Brigade" to a Regiment.
4. Add to the "4th Logistics Brigade"(which now has no units under it) the following units 1) 41st Transport Battalion "Bobalna", 2) 43rd Transport Battalion "Roman I Musat" and 3) 88 Maintenance Battalion (Cluj-Napoca).
5. To the 15th Mech. Infantry Brigade, the addition of the following units (some of them are there already but without any names or with a different name like in the case of the 33rd battalion):
I realize you're probably busy doing so many other updates, new images, etc. but really thanks alot.
Best,
Dapiks (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks alot, Best of luck. Dapiks (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! Long time no speak. I've noticed you've drastically changed the structure of the Swiss Army, in opposition to what is still listed on the army websites and to what I personally know. Caught news of some new upcoming reorganisation? Because I was quite surprised to see the InfBrig 4 missing and infantry battalions within the Armoured Brigades. Being with the Armoured Brigade 1, I have so far not heard of any new "infantry" reinforcements. Boy are our pzgrenis not going to like it if fusiliers come around stealing their jobs :D Hope to hear from you soon! Russoswiss (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Greetings: Noticed a slight error in the Combat Aviaition Brigade section of the page. It lists the 1-224th AVN (S&S). This is incorrect. The 1-224th AVN currently is organic to the 42nd CAB, 42nd Infantry Division http://www.1-224ssb.org/organization.html You will probaly notice that the official website also says they operate under the 29th CAB, 29th Infantry Division. This is peace time, in state command and control only. Even still, they answer partly to the 42nd CAB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon b5 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello again! According to news dating from May 2009 (http://lenta.ru/news/2009/05/26/tula/), the Ministry of Defence cancelled the planned disbanding of the 106th Tula Division, just a week before the unit was to be de jure disbanded (June 1 2009). This means that theoretically at least, the division is still in service pending the higher ups in the Kremlin figuring out what they want to do with it. Russoswiss (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You should have enough to do a brief graphic now: I've integrated some data from Jane's World Armies and IISS Military Balance to do a outline organisation. No unit designations below corps level though: doesn't seem to be available anywhere. Oh and by the way; check Talk:Russian Ground Forces#New brigades for a list of their new brigades. Any chance I can get a copy of that new structure doco for the RGF you mention at your talk? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
What was the reason for your revert in the Blue water Navy page?Bcs09 (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, in which case i fully support your decision to remove such comment. Regards --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Noclador,
I finally got ahold of Empar, but he stated he has given away his reference material and was only able to provide broad guidelines. He did say that you had a good idea regarding the at least some of the squad organization of Alpine troops, and so I am asking again if you can assist in this regard. My specific interest is in how many men were present in Alpine infantry squads during the post World War II period. Empar mentioned 14-men and 7-men squads and I wonder if these were in the Alpine troops, or if not, how many men made up an Alpine infantry squad. Thank you for any assistance. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I was poking around the US Army Reserve website when I came across this http://www.usar.army.mil/arweb/organization/commandstructure/USARC/OPS/11Avn/Commands/8229Avn/History/Pages/default.aspx
Apparently, the 8-229th now fall under the 11th Theater Aviation Command. The wording of the article suggests that this is either a recent change or Army Public Affairs just recently put the story up. I believe another section of the USAR website also shows 8-229th personnel wearing the 11 TAC patch (I belive the Army made the Reserves two AH-64 units report directly to 11th TAC and not 244th TAB, but I'm still looking for some verification on the website). I am trying to confirm if this is just a peacetime organization with the 8-229th WARTRACE to the 29th CAB or if this is permamnent. Apparently, the National Guard is in yet ANOTHER stage of minor realignments and reorganizations.
Also (I'm not sure if you're the go to guy for this one but here goes...) the "Military Police Corps (United States Army)" page has a couple of errors. The only bit of info I could find for the 290th Military Police Brigade is this http://www.vetshome.com/military_police_patches_history2.htm which shows the brigade ceased to exist in 1985. Other than that, there seems to be nothing posted at all (nothing on the Institute of Hearldry page or any US Army websites. I can't even confirmed if it ever was a Maryland National Guard unit. The 260th Military Police Brigade, D.C. National Guard should be listed as the 260th Military Police Command, D.C. National Guard. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/260mp-cmd.htm http://states.ng.mil/sites/DC/leadership/Pages/aagarmy.aspx http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/mp/260th%20Military%20Police%20Command.htm Agamemnon b5 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hallo, bitte mal hier schauen de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Militärgeschichte_Frühe_Neuzeit ganz unten. Habe die Box ein wenig angepasst und dann zum Standard auch für frühneuzeitliche Einheiten gemacht. Danke für Hilfe! --Westfalenbaer (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
A few comments on this excellent diagram; Armoured Division basic Organisation II (April 1940) states the armoured division should be laid out as follows:
Div HQ
Arm Bde -3 arm regts
Arm bde -3 arm regts
Support Group - RHA regt -LAA/Anti-tank Regt (a mixed regiment) -2 Motor battaliosn
Div RE -Field Squadron -Field Park Troop
In October 1940 the was a change labeled Basic Organisation III that changed the division, on paper, to as follows:
Div HQ
Armoured Car Regt
Arm Bde -3 arm regts -1 motor bn
Arm Bde -3 arm regts -1 motor bn
Support Group -RHA regt -Anti-tank regt -LAA regt -Inf bn (lorried)
Div RE -2 Field squadrons -1 field park troop
--- So there the basic organisations that the War Office set out (source: Lt-Col Joslen, Orders of Battle Second World War, pp. 4-5) so it does not entirely tally with your work; there no sign of a recce regt for example and the makeup of the support group is slighlty different.
Regards--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
According to Basic Organisation VIII (march 1944) - which was not changed till the following year - the graphics match up but for one detail; you have missed the Independant Machine Gun Company that was a divisional assest.
If you needed additional information on the engineers posted to the division, there was now two field squadrons, 1 bridge troop and 1 field park squadron.
Regards--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | ||
A little thank you for the creation and “updation” of these brilliant graphicsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC) |
Restored a section you removed from the article about this division a while back. The reason for your edit was: "Totenkopf End: quick fact check: Karl Ullrich wrote the book, but he was not present at the Totenkopf surrender as he commanded Wiking Div. at the time- so it is hearsay on his part". I assume that you have not read the book in question since the episode mentioned in the article is drawn from an account given by a veteran of the division. The book features numerous such first hand accounts from various veterans of the division. If you have a response, please leave it on my talk page. Tchernobog 00:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I was told you might know someone to edit the maps? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe there's enough information at the Afghan National Army#Corps section to create a basic corps/brigade level orbat chart. Six corps - 201, 203, 205, 207, 209, 215, and one division (111). Please for 215th Corps just insert a single brigade plus an extra brigade placeholder section, as other brigades will probably be attached but we don't know the details yet. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
To answer one of your questions, the 21st and 22nd Construction Regiments have been assigned to Army Reserve brigades - the 21st Construction Regiment is now part of the 5th Brigade (in Sydney) and the 22nd Construction Regiment is part of the 4th Brigade (in Melbourne). As a correction, according to the document explaining the recent restructure of the Army, Forces Command is a 2 star headquarters, and it and the 1st Division report directly to Army Headquarters (see page 5 for the Army's current high-level structure). From early 2011 the 1st Division headquarters will no longer have any units permanently assigned to it, with its current units switching across to Forces Command except for when they're assigned to the 1st Division HQ during pre-deployment training and exercises (page 7). Note also that two brigade-level training units have been integrated into Forces Command; I don't know that these comprise however. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you needed some more info about the structural organization of the Bulgarian army. Its hard to find such even here, because our ministry of defence classifies most of the information on the military, but here is some info that can probably help you:
- Tourbillon A ? 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I hope some of it will be useful to you.