User talk:Noclador

Axeman89 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'd like to thank you for your military organization charts! Axeman89 05:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Argentine Army

Another Link from saorbats.ar.com about the Order of battle of the Argentine Army: http://www.saorbats.com.ar/EA_orbat.htm It is quite complicated and confusing and I don't know how up to date it is, but if you need any help in translating it, I would be glad to help you.

An updated version of the Argentine Army Orbat (as of January 2008) can be found at that same site: [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.90.117 (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Uruguayan Army

Although I couldn't find the Army of this nation in your to-do-list, perhaps you are interested in drawing a structure of it, as there is a very actual orbat on the page I already talked to you about: http://www.saorbats.com.ar/ORBAT%20-%20Uruguay%20-%20ENU.htm

Singapore Army

To answer your question on the Singapore Amry page, visit http://www.geocities.com/mindef123/

Iraq

Take a look at this - http://billroggio.com/oob/index.php - for an OB source. Cheers Buckshot06 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Swedish Army

Check this out http://www.armehandbok.se/ny_sida_1119.htm Papastis (talk)

Bulgarian military

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:

• Ranks
• Main services are:
  • Liaison brigade - responsible for communications, currently that is 62nd Liaison Brigade (62-ra svarzochna brigada)
  • Logistics brigade - responsible for logistics, 110th Logistics Support Brigade, or simply The Logistics Brigade (110-a brigada za logistichna podkrepa)
  • Joint Operative Command - responsible for organizing different sorts of operations, including overseas, training, planning, etc.
  • Land forces
    • 61th Stryamska Mechanized Brigade (elite land forces) - Karlovo
    • 68th Brigade (elite land forces)
    • 9th Armored Brigade (tank forces, T-72 equipped) - Gorna Banya
    • 13th Armored Brigade (tank forces, T-55 equipped, training) - Sliven
    • 101st Mountain Brigade (alpine infantry) - Smolyan, Ardino, Momchilgrad
    • 301st Rocket Batallion (tactical missile forces, SS-21 equipped)
    • 5th Shipchenska Mechanized Brigade (elite land forces) - Kazanlak
    • 4th Artillery Brigade (artillery forces) - Asenovgrad
    • others
  • Air Force
    • Krumovo Air Base
    • Vrazhdebna Air Base
    • Bezmer Air Base
    • Graf Ignatievo Air Base
  • Navy
    • Atiya Naval Base
    • Varna Naval Base
    • Marine Battallion - Burgas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tourbillon (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Military Information Service
  • Military Police Service
  • Military Medical Academy (Sofia) - medical support

- Tourbillon ^A ? 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I hope some of it will be useful to you.

Hellenic Air Force

Here is a link that presents the current orgasization in english [2], and in greek [3]. 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 Wikipedia: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, --ROGER DAVIES ^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. --ROGER DAVIES ^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. --ROGER DAVIES ^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)

Historic Armies

Your army graphics are wonderful work, and I am very pleased that you are starting to make them for historic armies. Would you consider doing charts showing typical division organizations for the powers of World War II? (USA, Britain, Germany, USSR, Italy, Japan, etc.) --Lunar Dragoon (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This site [4] has realms of information on many WWII countries, both unit organizations and high level orders of battle. --Lunar Dragoon (talk) 17:32, 8 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:

1 GREN GDS - 11 Bde/London Dist	1 SCOTS - 52 Bde	1 PWRR - 20 Bde	1 LANCS - 4 Bde	1 MERCIAN - 4 Bde	1 R IRISH - 16 Bde	1 RIFLES - 3 Bde
1 CLDM GDS - 1 Bde	2 SCOTS - 52 Bde	2 PWRR - Cyprus	2 LANCS - Cyprus	2 MERCIAN - 19 Bde	2 PARA - 16 Bde	2 RIFLES - 19 Bde
1 SG - 4 Bde	3 SCOTS - 19 Bde	1 RRF - 7 Bde	1 YORKS - 20 Bde	3 MERCIAN - 1 Bde	3 PARA - 16 Bde	3 RIFLES - 11 Bde
1 IG - London Dist	4 SCOTS - 7 Bde	2 RRF - 12 Bde/London Dist	2 YORKS - 11 Bde	1 R WELSH - 11 Bde	1 RGR - Brunei	4 RIFLES - 1 Bde
1 WG - 19 Bde	5 SCOTS - 16 Bde	1 R ANGLIAN - 12 Bde	3 YORKS - 12 Bde	2 R WELSH - Land Warfare Cent	2 RGR - 52 Bde	5 RIFLES - 20 Bde
		2 R ANGLIAN - 7 Bde

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

Naval OrBat

Hi noclador! Sorry to be bothering you again, but I've resumed work on my IDF schematic (it's indeed taking much longer than I had hoped), and would like to include the navy and air force. Unfortunately, I still don't fully understand the color scheme you used for the IDF, and can't copy the navy part because I haven't found any of your OrBat graphics related to navies. Can you please tell me what color to use for naval formations? A full explanation of the color scheme would be more helpful, but you probably don't have time for this if it's not ready in a document. You e-mailed me some files a while ago, but they don't seem to explain the color scheme, just the App-6 symbols. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on the overall IDF chart, and made this interim diagram. Please tell me what you think! -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I followed your advice. Not much of a difference IMO, but maybe it did become more clear to those unfamiliar with the subject. Cheers! -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

		The WikiChevrons
		For the many beautiful coats of arms which you made, and your admirable devotion to accuracy, please accept the Military history WikiProject WikiChevrons. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Noclador. You have new messages at User talk:IRP#Steinerner Steg.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

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

• 
  Existing version with laurel wreath, based on bronze wiki
• 
  Example of oakleaves
• 
  Example of swords
• 
  Bronze: "W" and stand needs removing
• 
  Silver: "W" and stand needs removing
• 
  Gold: "W" and stand needs removing

Now that I've seen what lovely graphic work you do, I was wondering whether I could ask you for a big favour :)

We are currently giving out an A-class medal for editors who write three A-class articles. It's above.

We'd like to redesign it slightly and introduce two more variations. The design will be essentially the same as the existing version but with changed colours and added elements.

1. standard version: blue cross, bronze background wiki, bronze laurel wreath
2. oakleaves version: blue cross, silver background wiki, green oakleaf wreath
3. swords version: blue cross, gold background wiki, gold crossed swords; green oakleaf wreath

Is it possible you could design these and make the artwork for us please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can have twelve if you like :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've finished the graphics, but commons has problems and it wont display recently uploaded images. I hope the people at commons fix that quickly. --noclador (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for your very excellent work! As you can see from the gallery above, the greatest difficulty we have is that they look very similar in small sizes, which is how many people display their barnstars.

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze (variant)

Bronze (variant)

Silver

Silver

Gold

Gold

Gold (variant)

Gold (variant)

May I suggest a couple of changes which would help bring out the differences at small sizes?

1. Proposed A-Class Bronze medal. Perhaps the wreath could be the much less leafy one we're already using in the current A-Class medal? If the wreath would be bronze, that would help make it less emphatic.

2. Proposed A-Class Silver medal. This is fine as it is :)

3. Proposed A-Class Gold medal. The crossed swords rather disappear at small sizes. Perhaps we could make them bigger, so that the handles come out to the same width as the widest point of the oak wreath? The blades could perhaps also be thicker and also come out to the widest point? the idea is to create a strong visual X out of the swords, that will read at small sizes.

Do you think this is achievable? With very many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Thank you very much for the new versions. I think they work very well both large and small :) The three I'd like to go with are:

Bronze (variant)

Bronze (variant)

Silver

Silver

Gold

Gold

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 :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lovely! Thank you, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18

37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ritten

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

Test

• Bronze
  Bronze
• Silver
  Silver
• Gold
  Gold
• Gold II
  Gold II

• Bronze
  Bronze
• Silver
  Silver
• Gold
  Gold
• Gold II
  Gold II

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. — 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. — 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)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steinerner Steg. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gerardw (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)