User talk:Buckshot06

Archives
Archive 1 (August - October 2006)
Archive 2 (October 2006 - Dec 2006}
Archive 3 ( - July 2007)
Archive 4 (July - September 2007)
Archive 5 (September 2007-January 2008)
Archive 6 (January 2008-)
Archive 7 (from then to later)
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11 (April-May 2008)
Archive 12 (May - June 2008)
Archive 13
Archive 14
Archive 15
Archive 16
Archive 17

RuAF

I have Altered alot with that pages Misguided Information it has the T-60s canceled when it became the Pakda just how LFS became Pakfa and Mikoyan LMFS program Russia has 4000 aircraft 2200 are combat please im me i dont know how to give references which i have tons of or to contact you thank you so much (User:LMFS)

Forces of central subordination

I don't mind helping you out with this, but I should admit that the military terminology is not something I am very comfortable translating (I am capable of translating it, but I can't guarantee the quality of the output). However, I could supply the links to the articles about the populated places, if that helps you any. I wish I could help with the airports as well, but I don't really have anything to look them up properly, so it's going to be hit-or-miss there. Let me know what you want me to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:21, June 22, 2009 (UTC)

I've translated the portion you requested, but I want to once more re-emphasize that I wasn't very comfortable with the quality of my translation—it felt as if I was guessing, rather than knowledgeably translating, way too often. I hope the translation helps you get the idea of what all those facilities are, so you could then copy-edit it to conform with the established English military terminology. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:25, June 24, 2009 (UTC)

Vladimirsky Lager

Any time. Enjoy! I trust you'll be taking care of the army base portion from here?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:16, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

LMFS

Hey Thanks so much for everything can you make a page about the Russian Dozor 600 UAV its said to be a future UAV for Russia heres the link

http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/2009/08/russias-newest-uav-at-maks-2009.html

you can also watch it on youtube thx :)

TUSC token b088c2c74706bfe6ef07cc0994df7ac3

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

3rd Guards MRD

Happy new year to you too (and I wish I could continue my holidays till January 14...)! I'll take a look at this some time later this week, if you don't mind. Are you working with the verbatim ru-wiki version, or is your version a mix? Just want to clarify how much fixing I should be doing :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:38, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay; truth be told, I forgot :( Anyway, it's done now, although I would recommend you proofread it one more time and copyedit as necessary. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

No worries

Happy new year! I have the resources to do something useful, I'm glad someone took notice of my work! yeah sure i will try and follow the guidelines, i'll see how i go? Buckshot06 are you upset the fact that New Zealand scrapped the combat types of your airforce? take it easy ;(User talk:Lovetravel86); 16:38, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Marinovka

Nope, it's just one of the countless villages in Volgograd Oblast; there really is nothing special about it. I've created a Marinovka set index for navigation; let me know if you want a (very) basic stub on the Volgograd Oblast village as well. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 7, 2010; 13:57 (UTC)

Soviet Air Defense Forces

Sorry, I'm afraid you misunderstood. I don't have most of the books they have. I have a very large library of books on the administrative divisions, with which their collection of ATD books has a great deal of overlap, but I don't have books on any other subjects they have. Of the books I own, none are on the subject of the SADF.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 25, 2010; 13:16 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:RUS

We don't have approved spellings, we have romanization guidelines :) For each individual person from your list, you should be using the spelling which is the most common in the English-language sources you are going to use. If you only have Russian sources, then use the WP:RUS default romanization—Arkady Bakhin, Alexander Galkin, Konstantin Sidenko, Vladimir Chirkin. If the English-language sources use different spellings inconsistently, then pick one that's closest to the WP:RUS default variant. Does it help? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2010; 14:22 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Military districts of Russia

Just wanted to give you a heads-up (in case you missed it) that the military districts of Russia have been re-organized on September 20 (with the effective date of December 1). If there's anything I can help with, please don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2010; 13:24 (UTC)

I am not much interested in translation work; sorry! Too much on my plate as it is. I could help with the specifics of the changes, but it seems you are ahead of me there. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2010; 21:15 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:Iraqi Turkmens

Buckshot06, I suggest you illustrate to me exactly what you consider to be POV nationalist editing in the Iraqi Turkmens article. Do you consider a wide range of academic sources to be a nationalist factor?

If you look at the following edit by User:Takabeg (see here: [1]) you will see that it was in fact Takabeg [the user who has reported me to you] who put these sources and believed that they were reliable enough to be in the article. However, Takabeg failed to read the sources properly which say that the Iraqi government placed the Iraqi Turkmen population at 136,800 in 1957 but subsequently the Iraqi government admitted that the figure was incorrect and that it was actually 567,000. 'All the references say this! It has nothing to do with POV or nationalism. However, the funny thing is, is that now those references which Takabeg provided [with the intention of placing low figures of the community i.e. 136,800] failed to read the entire sources, I illustrated to them on their talk page [by quoting all the source they provided] the fact that all of them said that the Iraqi Turkmens numbered 567,000. Now Takabeg does not see these source [which they themselves had provided] to be a reliable anymore ([see here: [2]). I wonder why??

Nonetheless, even without the sources Takabeg provided, all the other sources were academic anyway...

So Buckshot06, please show me were my nationalistic edits occur. I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia trying to improve articles [yes it’s mainly on Turkish immigrants and minorities, but that’s my personal interest, it has nothing to do with nationalism] and I have never been threatened with being blocked. Thus, I am offended by the way you have warned me, especially when I have spent hours using reliable academic source to improve this article. The only thing Takabeg is interested in is lowering the population of the community; if you looked at the history of the article you would have known this [or maybe you have misunderstood the dispute- or so I hope]. I am willing to discuss this issue with mediators etc. if required, but it's a shame that academic sources in all my contributions is not enough for you all. Good day to you.Turco85 (Talk) 09:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well technically, the census was published in 1959. So the 567,000 figure is the official number of the 1957 census. However, due to the political issues that concern northern Iraq, many Kurdish and Arab scholars pushed for a corrupt census. Thus, the government claimed to have counted 136,800 Turks. Nonetheless, I have also placed this into a footnote in the info box of the article.

The problem is that there is not much academia on this community. I have tried to look for journal articles via my university institution and could not find even one online-journal article. Thus, sources are very limited. Nonetheless, even the sources which User:Takabeg has used, supports what I am telling you here. What Takabeg did was type "136,800" into a google search and just placed whatever they could find into the article without actually reading them (see for example this link were Takabeg wrote in the search engine "only 136800" [3]).

So to sum up this confusing census debate, the 1957 census counted 567,000 Turkmens. However, due to political issues, the Iraqi government claimed that there were only 136,000 Turks. Furthermore, a year later they admitted that the very same census actually counted 567,000 Turkmen (more than 400% from the previous year’s claim). The census itself was published in 1959. Thus, the published census says that there was 567,000 Iraqi Turkmen in 1957 not 136,800.Turco85 (Talk) 18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If we all know that the '136,800' figure was corrupt [as all the sources show], and we have sources which clearly state that the Iraqi government admitted that the population was actually 567,000, why on earth should we place a corrupt number in the info box? I think it is very misleading. Turco85 (Talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Turco85. I apologise for my threats. Now, the book you said Takabeg cited says that the 136800 figure is the figure the Kurdish authorities claim. Would you please be very clear about which political agendas wish to cite which numbers, and please confirm exactly which agendas are involved. I need more than 'political issues' to try and thread the needle on this dispute. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. I apologise if I have come across as rude in my first response to you. It's just that User:Takabeg keeps trying to make me look bad to other users (see for example: [4])... it's getting really annoying now. I keep getting accused of ridiculous things and get called a number of names which gets frustrating after a while.

The political issues are quite complex, but here is an article which Scott Taylor (the author of the source above, which Takabeg provided), I'm sure this article will answer your questions.Turco85 (Talk) 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I typed "136,800". It's no problem. Because we know that issue.

"136,800" is official data of 1957 census. Kurds in Iraq accepted it but this is not their invention. Kurdish authority also want to use it.

• put them at 2.4 % of the total population of Iraq at the time ....
• p. 1957 sayımının ilk resmi sonuçlarına göre 136 800 Türk bölgede yaşamaktaydı.

"567,000" is no official data and but the number in the study of Fazıl Demirci. According to Demirci and Hürmüzlü, the number was fixed as "567,000". But we cannot prove　it and we cannot say that was corrected number. The Turkish government and Turkoman nationalists want to use it.

In this case, we must show these disputed number and in article. Thank you.

Takabeg (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, I cannot even take you seriously anymore. So are you now saying that the work of Scott Taylor [i.e. the author which you initially provided] is not reliable? What makes me laugh is that you have not read these sources properly either! If you look at page 87 of the second source which you have now provided it says the following: '1957 sayımının ilk resmi sonuçlarına göre 136 800 Türk bölgede yaşamaktaydı. Ancak bu sonuçlar 1958 darbesinden sonraki yeni hükümet zamanında düzeltilerek, yeniden yayınlanmıştı ki, bu defa ki rakamlar yani 567 000 rakamı gerçeğe daha yakın bir rakam olmuştu'. Which roughly translates to what I have explained on this discussion page.Turco85 (Talk) 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Even Patrick Clawson, Deputy Director for research of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has shown is his articles that the Turkmen population was 9%. Why don't you google that!? Takabeg, I don't think you even care about this article. Your only goal is to lower the population and nothing else. All the sources have shown that the numbers were changed after it was published in 1959. You call me a nationalist, yet you cannot seem to accept facts by academic sources.Turco85 (Talk) 10:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I am very happy for you to debate on my talkpage. But you MUST be civil to each other and stop sniping and making accusations at each other. WP:Assume Good Faith applies. I want to see a resolution to this issue, and I'm quite happy to follow you two as you come to an agreement. But if you keep hurling accusations at each other, I will block you both; not for editwarring or anything else, but for personal attacks. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Turco85, and Takabeg, please provide the academic article sources - no blog sites - which support your claims. List them here and I'll take a look. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

See for example:

• Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis in 'How US – EU Academia, Politicians and Mass Media Create a Fake Kurdistan with False Data'
• Scott Taylor in 'Among the Others – Encounters with the forgotten Turkmen of Iraq'
• Yücel Güçlü in 'Who Owns Kirkuk? The Turkoman Case'
• You can also look at the other sources which are cited in the Iraqi Turkmens article

This is the first time I have ever had to prove facts in a census... an experience I shall never forget. A census does not usually get published the year it is carried out; e.g. the 2010 US census won't be published till summer 2011. I have shown that the 1957 counted 567,000 Iraqi Turkmen using academic sources. I have even shown that the sources Takabeg has provided claim 567,000. There is nothing else I can do. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. I guess I'm just going to have to wait and see whether academic sources will prevail against corruption.Turco85 (Talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason you have to provide academic article sources, preferably scholarly journal articles, is because I have to make this decision. I'm a Kiwi with, charitably, little knowledge of this dispute, but I seem to have because involved in the dispute resolution. Scholarly journal articles are the most respected source of academic scholarship, which is why I'm asking you to provide them, because they are most trusted. Now, are these three journal articles? books? what? If they're books, I need full bibligraphic data so I can look for them; if they're journals, please give the journal names. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Found the refs for two, but not the Megalommmatis article - which journal is that in? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that Buckshot06, I thought I placed the links alongside the suggested sources! The first source was a mere article on a website [5].Turco85 (Talk) 22:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally random but I'm going NZ next year to sky-dive. Heard it's meant to be totally awesome!Turco85 (Talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, I have also found an Arabic article (which is in the Arabic language); towards the end of the article it says that in 1959 it was declared that the population was in fact 567,000. Turco85 (Talk) 11:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your probably sick of me by now (sorry!) but I have just come across a newspaper article which was published today but Iraqi-Arab author Ahmed Al-Hurmezi (see here: [6]). Although the article does not mention any census' I think it's a relatively simply (yet knowledgeable) read for those who do not know much about this community.Turco85 (Talk) 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06, as a respected independent [non-profit] peace organisation, the International Crisis Group seems reliable enough to me, especially since we have so many more sources which also back this up. Turco85 (Talk) 09:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

New section

Greetings Buckshot. Yesterday, an editor named Takabeg brought to my attention the creation of three new articles on Wikipedia relating to the Nagorno-Karabakh War. They concern alleged massacres carried out by Armenian troops, although the sources used are highly partisan in nature, originating, almost without exception, from Azerbaijani news websites, politicians, and organizations, which clearly have a beef in the matter. I outlined my objections here on his talk page and told him that I would reference the matter to you as well. He has already added notability and reliability tags on the articles in question, with good reason I believe, but further action apparently is warranted. Would you mind taking a look? I'll chime in as well but if reliable sources are not found, then they should be merged into an existing article or deleted altogether. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the decision is to remove articles on these massacres, then why should this decision take one sided fashion? I suggest that Maraghar Massacre is also removed using the same reasoning. There does not seem to be sufficient evidence to support the claim, other than sources from a single side. Atabəy (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Buckshot. I do not edit as often due to time constraints, however, I continue to watch several articles relevant to A-A topics. So you are welcome to contact me regarding this at any time.

Again, the campaign launched by User:Takabeg and User:MarshallBagramyan clearly aims to get rid of one-side of the conflict story and uphold the other (their own). User Takabeg was notorious in Turkish Wikipedia targeting anything related to Azeri side of the story.

I believe for the sake of neutrality, both sides should be treated the same way. I.e. if the Aghdaban massacre with 99 victims is irrelevant, I don't see why Sumgait Pogrom or Maraghar Massacre are relevant? What is the criteria for deciding the notability of these articles? If it is factual evidence, there are several sources proving that the events took place. If that is not sufficient, then the rule shall be applied equally to both stories. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that your judgment to delete the article was based on your impression of MarshallBagramyan rather than review of facts and references relevant to the subjects as well as ongoing discussion on the talk page?

• These are Google books references on "Maraghar Massacre" search term: [7]
• These are Google books references on "Agdaban" search term: [8]

Both seem to produce about the same amount of references in relevance to massacres, with slightly more in case of Agdaban. Could you explain how Agdaban massacre is different than Maraghar, preferably without reference to personal perception of users? Best regards. Atabəy (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot, with all due respect, do you mind explaining why you deleted three articles which were being discussed, without even making a comment on their talk pages? Tuscumbia (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Buckshot, in response to your answer, yes it does explain your actions, but does not explain your intent. I am very sorry to say that, but you deleted the articles with complete disregard to those editors who were commenting on the talk pages and discussing the issues raised by concerned editors, let alone the editor who created these articles. MarshallBagramyan is not an authority on Wikipedia over anyone and whether he raised the NK War article to FA standard or not does not warrant others to delete articles in sympathy to MarshallBagramyan. I created 100 more articles than MarshallBagramyan did on various subjects including Nagorno Karabakh raising many of them to various levels. Does that give you grounds to delete articles out of sympathy for my work? If so, please feel free to delete the Maraghar Massacre article which is based on Armenian and pro-Armenian sources and is not any more notable than those three massacres. Tuscumbia (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why you're deleting articles related NK massacres? Your actions are completely one sided. You could use Talk page first, but it seems like to listen two people's opinion is enough to delete a page contributed at least by 5 people. Unbelievable!--CenkX (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

With all the hubub going on about Maraghar, I should like to point out that Tuscumbia added the same tags, with little justification, to that article, which were added by me on those massacre articles which were deleted recently. To the best of my understanding, this was done to make a POINT, since I am having considerable difficulty in understanding how sources like the BBC, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are considered unreliable? I have since tidied up the article and attributed any unclear claims but my argument still stands and can be found outlined on Tuscumbia's talk page here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

State Commission for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Occupied Territories

Hello, Buckshot06. You have new messages at Tuscumbia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tuscumbia (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Being talked about at AN

Just a heads up, there's a thread regarding your actions at WP:AN. --Jayron32 06:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandals on Iraqi Turkmens

Hi Buckshot06, I'm messaging you as I am concerned with the recent vandalism going on in the Iraqi Turkmens article. I suspect that User:Damn00 and I.P 85.166.151.8 are sock-puppets of User:Takabeg. The contributions of all three are very similar. I may be wrong... but it seems very possible. I would be really grateful if you keep an eye out. Have a great day and Merry Chirstmas from now!Turco85 (Talk) 15:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maraghar Massacre

I hate to overburden you again but, given your familiarity on the topic and the fact that it is being done so blatantly, it appears that editors Tuscumbia and Atabey have decided to retaliate against your recent actions by making a POINT on the Maraghar Massacre article. They have added neutrality, notability, and until today unreliability tags and have all but admitted that they are carrying out these edits out of spite for your decisions. Sources which any other editor would find acceptable, such as the BBC, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, are deemed unreliable and there seems to be an intense effort to over-scrutinize and question the judgment of their respective authors. I only have to refer you to the sorry state the article is now in see the history here, what with the overabundance of tags and "citations needed" templates but it seems that some sort of action needs to be taken here and, since it directly concerns you, you might want to take a look at it yourself or in conjunction with your peers. Best, -Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)