Hi Flayer, I'd suggest that you copy your comprehensive victims list into a separate article about Israeli casualties; it would be good I think. Aleverde.
I heard there are some rules against it... Can you check this? Flayer 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I am not exactly an experienced Wikipedian... Maybe these rules exist against very long lists? This one is not too long (thank G-d!) Aleverde.
Well, it would be an article at some point. Flayer 12:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've got you into trouble with this idea --Aleverde 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, this report has the real number against all claims. Flayer 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no rules against posting that list (at least to my knowledge) you could just create a new article for it, but if you want to ask an administrator try here Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. (Btw that’s a very detailed page you’ve made)……………. or you could just try putting it in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict it would be quite relevant.Freepsbane 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I just but in and say that it is only fair if there is to be an Israeli casualty page, than there should also be Lebanese civilian and Hezbollah causality pages. ~ clearthought 22:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see, we don't know yet the exact number of Lebanese and Hezbollah casualties. Is it fair to report the exact number of Israeli casualties? Flayer 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say (I should have gone over my post again), was that if possible we report the approx. number of deaths on all sides (Hezbollah, Israel military, Lebanon/Israel civilians) from the information we know or can find. In my opinion, we should not list every individual death, but a number for each applicable category. Since we pretty much only have details on Israeli deaths, I don't know if it would be fair for us to have detailed death lists for Israel but only numbers for all other parties involved in the conflict. ~ clearthought 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my previous warning on 3RR you still went ahead and reverted nearly eight times. As such you’ve been reported on the 3rr administrator notice board. If you dispute the allegations against you, you should go and post on the note section of the board. For the sake of fairness I have posted all the evidence gathered against you. Here you may review the data and if you find it to be inaccurate you should post on the notice board. Otherwise it is likely that if you don’t contest this that you may be blocked by an administrator. Respectfully--Freepsbane 00:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
As a result of your revert warring on Battle of Bint Jbeil, I have blocked you for three days, effective from 04:47 UTC 6 August 2006. Due to the severity, (8 reverts), I will not consider early removal of the block. Hopefully, after the block expires, you will have cooled down and can contribute to Wikipedia in a more positive manner. Regards, RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing lower sourced estimates of casualties under the "minor edit" tag is disingenuous. Please provide a real edit summary when you are obviously making substantial or contentious removals. Thanks, Italiavivi 17:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flayer. I noticed you changed the IDF death toll back to 119 from 117. The reason this was changed to 117 was because (a) 2 of the 119 soldiers died after the ceasefire, and (b) we don't list deaths in the conflict that occurred after the ceasefire for other groups. For instance, the Lebanese citizen death toll does not include those killed by unexploded cluster bombs after the ceasefire went into effect. Thoughts? — George Saliba [talk] 09:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you interested in commenting on the "Request move" discussion in Talk:2006 Israel-Hezbollah War? You may also want to note the sources I presented the "Article name" section of the talk page. --Shamir1 01:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Shamir1 has opened a medation request for renaming the 2006 Lebanon War article to 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War. As someone who was involved in previous discussions on the topic, I thought you may want to join in. Cheers. — George [talk] 23:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flayer, I just wanted to write this head's-up (and thanks for whatever your part was in it), to note that this table of casualties was relevant and useful to me just now as I created a page for the village of Arab al-Aramshe. As soon as I confirm the Hebrew spellings, I'll add the names of Fadiya, Samira, and Sultana Juma'a (may they rest in peace) to the corresponding page in the Hebrew Wikipedia, which presently only notes them as "three women of the same family." I appreciate your diligence in this work. -- Deborahjay 00:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Flayer 08:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken- the graphic IS correct. According to my sources: "Raid" Magazine, Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/army-orbat.htm) and ISS this is in fact the new structure of the IDF Ground Forces. The restructuring is still ongoing, but i.e. globalsecurity states: "Technological, Logistics & Medical Directorate (ATAL) (Maj. General- recently moved to MAZI control)". Also the regional commands are being moved under direct MAZI control, making MAZI an IDF-arm like Air Force and Navy. Also all corps (except the Military Police) will be moved under MAZI control. Corps and Brigades are under control of the Regional commands and the graphic clearly shows this. The Regional Commands will also be moved under MAZI control.
The new structure of IDF will be this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Namellar/TsahalOrbat.png (the graphic comes from the French "Raid" magazine, which is quite, knowledgeable about these things).
If you let me know the spelling errors and other problems you find in the graphic I will correct them (on Thursday- I leave in 2 hours for a 4-day holiday break :-), but be assured that the graphic as a whole is correct and up to date. Therefore the graphic can stay in the article. --noclador 14:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If my sources are wong (that angers me!!!) than please could you send me the data and changes that are needed to correct the graphic? I tried my best in creating the graphic, but if my sources got it wrong than you are right and the graphic needs to be reworked (and until then it needs to be removed!). I'm back at my desk on Thursday, and if I have your infos then, I will reworke the graphic immediately. thanks and best regards noclador 16:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flayer, could you please go through the various Commands, Divisions and Brigades under the link you provided Israel Defense Forces#Military structure and check if the information there is correct? To me it seems that it is full of errors and omissions and therefore it would be senseless to create the graphic anew with even more false and incomplete information. As the first graphic I created got the structure of the IDF Ground Forces wrong, this time I want to be sure to not publish wrong information. You also write that it will be necessary to fix "the structure of each infantry brigade, the structure of its recon battalions (recon company, AT company, engineering company, sometimes communication company), structure of the armour brigades, independent units of certain divisions, under regional command level, SF units of the higher level, and so on"... as I do not know what you intend with this- could you please help by going into further detail about what needs to be changed with the various structures you mention? Thanks, --noclador 10:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked the Northern Command for now (there is a lot of business work to do these days) and surprisingly there was not much to change- the only real new addition was the "Golan" territorial brigade. I did not remove units you didn't mention but which are mentioned in my sources (like: Unit 427 ATGM Btn, Northern Command Logistics Regiment and so on) as the details about the units that globalsecurity has published are very much the same as yours. The only question I have is about the 605th "ha-Mahatz"/"The Crush" engineering battalion- are you sure it is not part of the 36th "Gaash"/"Rage" armor division? An entire Armored Division without a single engineering unit seems strange to me. This is the graphic as it is now: Please tell me what other changes are needed within this graphic. I will try to create graphics of the Southern and Central Command tonight and post them here too. --noclador 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the graphic- I removed the Golani Buds Training Btn., changed the name of the Sayeret to Recon Company and also renamed the YASHAR Btn. as "Special Troops Btn.'s"- the same name the US-Army uses for this kind of mixed units. noclador 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the graphic according to your latest infos- one question: Is the Sayeret 95 Company of the Golani Brigade a reconnaissance unit or a Special Force unit? --noclador 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic has been updated. --noclador 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot 769th brigade "Hiram" at first, but fixed that now. Two things:
Which of the Reserve and Territorial Brigades are Mechanized? As it is now they are all light infantry Brigades, but I'm pretty sure that they must be mechanized given the IDF's amount of APC's and IFV's. Do you know which Brigades should be represented by the mechanized infantry symbol?
As soon as you think that the graphics are correct and ready I will merge them into a single graphic- add that to the main article about the IDF and also add the single Command's graphics to the respective articles (I will also update the unit listings there). but before we can do that- please have also a look a this graphic which contains the rest of the IDF Ground Forces I know about: --noclador 16:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the recon company of the 401st Armor Brigade is called "sayeret 188"? That is the same name as the Sayeret Company of the 188th Armor Brigade.. I left 401st Sayeret as this fits with the Brigade name.
Is the Sayeret Company of the Nahal Brigades special/recon battalion a reconnaissance unit or a Special Force unit?
According to my sources "Maglan" is directly under Central Command as is a Anti-Aircraft Parchuting unit named "Unit 7298 YANMAM".
Also a Unit "Moran" 8899 that operates Tamuz ATGM from M-113 APC is supposedly attached directly to Central Command. Any info on this?
This is the graphic of Central Command as it is now:
Is the Signal company of the Nahal part of the Special Troops Btn. or directly under the command of the Brigade? In both Golani and Paratrooper Brigade the Signal company is not part of the Special Troops Btn. Is the Nahal diffrent in this regard?
Globalsecurity states that both Moran (possibly 8899) and Meitar (possibly 427) come from the Artillery Corps to the Central Command, but are assigned in wartime or crisis to the Southern and Northern Command... I will put Moran and Meitar under the Artillery Corps (as soon as I will do this part of the graphic).
I changed the description of Maglan to "SF Demolition Btn." I also added Maglan and Yanmam to the 98th Para Div. as they fit much better in with that, than Central Command itself.
If there is "no such thing "tzanhanima" then this wiki article is full of errors: Yahsar Tzanchanim and this one too: Sayeret --noclador 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic has been updated. --noclador 16:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Regular armor engineering btn (601th, 603th, 605th) still belong to regular armor divisions (correspondingly, 401th, 7th, 188th). But yet each regional command has a battalion-size engineering unit."
I'm a bit confused: 401th, 7th, 188t are the Brigades- are the armor engineering btn part of the Brigades or part of the divisions? Do you know more about the regional commands engineering btns." --noclador 20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the graphics. --noclador 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Central Command (Israel) I will do after lunch :-)
As for the full graphic with all Commands and units together, I have almost finished that one too. I'can finish it when we have the info on Homefront Command and as soon as you say that the General Staff directorates, commands etc. you posted today are complete. --noclador 10:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Northern Command: I-HWAK and 8200- I'm sure the Syrians know more about it than we do, but if you think it better to remove them (as I don't want to reveal classified info), I will make it immediately disappear. --noclador 13:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Maybe the do know, and maybe the don't. But if we say that Nothern Command has 2 I-HAWK batteries, then anyone would ask how many I-HAWK batteries Central ans Southern does have? And we don't know it... :) Flayer 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and their respective brigades.
also: you can find all OrBat graphic of the IDF here: commons:Category:Military OrBat Graphics/Israel. I will do the Homefront Command next and probably finish the entire Ground Forces graphic tonight. If you want to translate the graphic into Hebrew- I can email to you the basic Photoshop-file so that you can exchange English with Hebrew. --noclador 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed your note on Noclador's talkpage re this division. I know it was a late arriving division to Operation Strongheart in '73 behind the 143rd and 162nd, but I can't remember the commander's name at the time. Do you have it? Cheers Buckshot06 07:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, and also your really helpful contributions to the IDF articles here. One thing - I had to search through the old page revisions before I found that the list on your userpage was a list of Israeli casualties from the recent war. You may want to re-add the heading. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost done with the graphic- some questions remain:
1) are
Reconstruction & Maintenance Center
Ammunition Center
Warlike Stores & Spare Parts Center
Construction Center
Equipment Center
Fuel Center
Transportation Center
Food Center
Medical Equipment Center
under the command of the "Logistics Division"? the article about the Logistics Corps (Israel) states: "centralizes the logistical activity in the IDF, including the transporting of supplies, shipments of fuel, construction, and transport"... and before making an error I would like to have your confirmation, about who commands the Centers. --noclador 11:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image got so big, that commons has trouble diyplaying it! Therefore I had to drop some minor departments (i.e. advocacy) and than I still had to render the file down to 4000px to maje it work. But now it does and it is online :-) --noclador 00:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
National Search & Rescue SF unit is NOT 669. Done
YALTAM diving unit belongs to the navy. Done
YACHMAM units were disbanded when FI corps set up. TZASAM unit also doesn't seem to be existed in during the last decade. hmm... if these two units have been disbanded what units are than Israels LRRP units? Have this duty been taken over by the Field Intel Battalions? If yes than we would need to change the icon of the Field intel units...
"Meitar" nd "Moran" units probably use wheeled ATGM systems. Done
It would be good to put in the BATARs of "Magal". Done
Is it possible to put in some structure of the IAF and navy to the left an to the right? it depends on how much you want to add... --noclador 12:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YACHMAM Done
TZASAM Done
New icon for Field Intel Battalions Done --noclador 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what symbol should than stand for Maglan... Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclador (talk • contribs) 18:13, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
as for Maglan: the symbol you sggested does not exist... I think the most fitting is still the SF symbol or as alternative the Special Operations Forces symbol:
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Maglan.PNG. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. Thank you. HermesBot 14:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hullo guy, it seems me that we have to take a decision about this subject.
It's quite difficult for me to understand your position. Your adopt a pro-israelian point of view on this subject, I have no problem with that : higher the number of point of view, better the article. However these facts seems me undeniable:
Hezbollah claims military and political victory. => no discussion (the article clearly says that it'snt true)
However it seems that the organisation was severly injuried by Tsahal during the conflict and may be unable to menace seriously Israeli territory for years. (I admit we can discuss about that)
Dan Halutz Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces resigned from office, following a critical report about the war.
=> no discussion, he indirectly killed many Israelis soldiers and lot of lebanese citizens by leading the war like a beginner.
To conclude, this note is completely neutral. It did it on on purpose, waiting for a concensus about the result of the war.
(I can add that it's even in favour of Tsahal considering it missed all of it objectives...)
There is many independant (but also Israeli and Lebanese) source that prove these facts, you cannot really contesting that. It can be difficult about some subject but please BE OBJECTIVE.
Thx for ur help on wikipedia ;) Mrpouetpouet 21:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image source problem with Image:Amal movement.jpg[edit]
Image Copyright problem
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Amal movement.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner.OsamaKBOT 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flayer User:Keiththejarhead just left this comment on my site. As I'm currently away working and most of the questions are addressed to you I copied his entire down below for you too read. best regards, --noclador 16:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--[User:Keiththejarhead]
this is my first time on Wikipedia so please forgive me if this does not script out too coherently, I'm going to need some practice at this. I am the person who created and donated the IDF Ground Forces and General Staff orders of battle on Globalsecurity. I am an American with no ability to read or speak Hebrew and my sources were all open, English language ones. The IDF official website, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, ISayeret.com, WarOnline, IDF Wikipedia, USIDFvets, etc.. I am thrilled at the information that Flayer has provided to correct mistakes on my OOB. All I am interested in is accuracy and I have always intended my IDF oob's as a tribute to the abilities, inovations and sacrifices of the IDF in the past and today.
I do have a few questions for Flayer concerning the IDF that I hope is open source/common knowledge in Israel. Concerning the logistics regiments discussed above-- In Haaretz I believe they discussed that each division does have a logistics regiment, but that the IDF is considering taking the divisional logistics regiments away and concentrating them in regional command logistics super units. I believe the 36th and 162nd divisions' logistics units are composed of active duty troops. Are the reserve only logistics regiments Regional Command units or divisional units?
I heard about a plan about concentrating the divisional logistics regiments in regional command logistics units, but I've never seen in open sources the result of this plan. Was it done? How was it done? I don't know... Flayer 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does the IDF still have the Regional/District armor bn's [GASHAP] as they did in 1967 and 1973 (181st and 182nd for example)?
Concerning some of the Reserve armor divisions-- I had heard that two armor divisions were to be deactivated. In fact I read that the "Plada" division had been deactivated (it was the 38th or 48th Division I believe).
There were different plans to disband some divisions, some divisions disbanded in the early 2000's, but 162nd "Ha-Plada" division exists. 38 was number of Sharon's division back in 1967.
The 340th Division of Central Command has the 5th Infantry Brigade (they were both in Haaretz with the 2002 operations in the West Bank and the 5th Brigade was the parent unit of the reservists still prisoners of Hezbollah in lebanon).
Indeed, 5th (mech) infantry brigade is a part of 340th "Idan" reserve armored division of Central Command. I don't know what are the other components, I think it was never published in open sources.
I have the names of several divisions-- Idan, Eyosh and Felda.
First, is the 5th Brigade named "Givati" like it was in 1949 (which personnaly i doubt because of 84th Brigade now) and can you tell me what the English translation of Idan, Eyosh and Felda are?
OMG, that's just a kind of very poor hebrew...
"Idan" - correct (means Idan - Israeli name, and may also mean "era", "epoch", "age").
"Eyosh" - bad spelling of a hebrew acronym "AYOSH", that means "Yehuda & Shomron Area", a.k.a Judea and Samaria, a.k.a West Bank, so it would be West Bank territorial division.
"Felda" - extremely bad spelling for "Ha-Plada" ("The Steel") division. In hebrew - אוגדת הפלדה. Flayer 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5th Brigade was named "Givati" since 30/11/1947. In 1956 it was disbanded, but in a few months 17th reserve infantry brigade set up, and it was given the name "Givati" (and the reservists of "Givati"). Later it was given the number 5 again. It is refered now as "historical Givati", "Givati 1948", "old Givati", "reserve Givati", or just "5th Brigade". The "new Givati" set up in 1983 and it was given the number 84. Flayer 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Israeli publications 'formation' is often used for 'division/ugdah'.
"Formation" is an old days disguisement for large unit. It could be brigade ("hativa"), regiment, division ("ugda"), or even corps. Israeli media use these terms not consistently, but it is clear what is what. Flayer 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have an 85th Division often referred to in Isayeret.com as "Otsa Kela David". An d my references for the 143rd, 146th and 210th Divisions were from Yom Kippur War divisions. So it's pretty obvious my info may be pretty dated or 'speculative'.
Most, if not all, numbers of large units were intentionally changed since 1973. Flayer 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the Territorial Divisions and brigades. Is the Judea and Samaria Division the 96th Division and the Gaza Division the 90th Division? It is very interesting to find out the 80th is a Territorial Division. Would the "Arava" and "Sagi" Territorial brigades be numbered 72nd or 99th?
96th is 98th now. 90th refers to First Lebanon War division. "Sagi" territorial brigade set up recently, I don't know its number, but IMHO it is unlikely to be 99. It is also unlikely that "Arava" territorial brigade is 72th. It is still widely classified. By the way, I'm trying to find out (open sources) what happened to "Eilat" territorial brigade, it could become "normal" reserve infantry brigade, and certain armored brigade, both probably of "Edom Formation" which is 80th Territorial Division. Flayer 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for any info you can give and for all the great stuff you have already done. Keiththejarhead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiththejarhead (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, let me know if anything else is needed. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flayer, you reverted my edit saying the "ha-Mapatz" Armored Division might be the 210th Armd Div. Can you explain why? Do you know it isn't; or are you aware of its number? Buckshot06 01:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that on the 210th a while ago. One other thing that I really do not understand is the numbering scheme for Israeli divisions: for example, in Operation Strongheart we had the 143rd and 160th (Adan's: 260th?), with the 252nd arriving later, and the 140th Composite on the same front later. Then the 210th, 36th, etc... I cannot distinguish any pattern. I know that Singaporean divisions with high numbers draw their numberings from Chinese beliefs about lucky or unlucky numbers etc; is there some roughly equivalent Jewish beliefs about certain numbers, that explain this, or what? Would appreciate an answer as I've never understood the logic. Thanks very much Buckshot06 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Flayer for your quick reply; at least I know now to stop looking for patterns! Cheers Buckshot06 19:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Re: size; I had to downsize the image a bit, as it will not fit even with removing the rightmost units. --noclador (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:54949.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:54949.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thank you for your contributions to List of Qassam rocket attacks. However, Wikipedia policy requires that all contributions are verifiable. Please include a citation for the information which you have provided. Additionally, imprecise language such as "about" should only be used when a more precise alternative is not available. It is better to write "at least 45 rockets" than to say "about 50 rockets." ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - just saw your msg - will change it as soon as possible - I'm currently on holidays so - probably the new file will be up coming Friday/Saturday. --noclador (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TR-85M1 is Romania's front-line tank, with apparently 300 in service. It is a fundamental rebuild, with structural changes to the turret and hull. Sabra is a very extensive modernization to give Turkey's M60 a longer life as a second-line tank, and there is no indication that it is in service yet. We don't include prototypes in the template, or old tanks used in the second line.
I see that you seem adamant as cataloging the HAL Tejas as a 4.5 generation fighter. Do you have any sources or specific reasons for this? Because frankly, the fighter's design was finalized before the 90s (which is a way to determine most 4th generation from 4.5 gen). But besides that, the plane isn't that capable. There's a reason it's called "Light Combat Aircraft". I don't have a bias against India or HAL, but this fighter doesn't deserve to be listed as 4.5 gen. --67.82.127.234 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I state only for cataloging HAL Tejas in alphabetic order. 4 or 4.5 generation, I don't know better than that. Flayer (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why I put it after France on the 4th gen. list. Thanks. --67.82.127.234 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flayer! First of all, cheers on the update, I didn't read the IDF site and the name change is interesting. However, please don't redirect the current article to the other name. Instead, a proper article move should be made. I'll work on it now. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Edit histories are properly aligned now, and everything seems to work just fine. Cheers, Ynhockey(Talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is wrong, please update it. And please explain why you think we should start including a bunch of second-line tanks in the template. But please don't revert-war over the link and justify it with unsupported statements.
Also, I'm frustrated with different editors adding their favourite tank, or deleting their least favourite. I've tried to coordinate some kind of sensible scheme for this template at Template talk:Post-Cold War tanks#Omission criteria, and you've refused to participate. Please try to use discussion instead of ramming your own ideas in by repeatedly reverting. —MichaelZ. 2008-08-01 00:15 z
Hello. I saw that you reverted my edits on 2006 Lebanon War. This was not vandalism, and I did not realize that this what a controversial issue, nor do I intend to become involved in it. Usually, I edit spelling, grammatical, and misusage whenever I see them. Including civilians treated for shock and anxiety in casualty figures is simply incorrect. These people are generally not considered casualties in the civilian sense of word. If they were soldiers, I believe they could be counted as casualties. After looking at the most recent talk page, it seems that there is not a consensus. Seeing as how there aren't figures like this listed in any other wars/battles that I have looked at and also because they are in agreement with casualty, I believe I am right in thinking they are irrelevant and a misusage of casualty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.140.66 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please look the the template talk page, where I leave my comments. I don't understand why you don't consider the TAM modern. It is no less modern than the M1 Abrams or the Leopard 2. The M1 Abrams, according to its Wiki article, entered service in 1980 and the Leopard 2 in 1979. The TAM began production in 1979. By that account it's just as modern as the Leopard 2. Furthermore, its development began after both of these already stated tanks. By today's standards it might not be up to par to these tanks in regards to firepower and protection (although superior in terms of mobility, which is the entire point - it's tailored to the requirements of the Argentine Army), but when it entered service its firepower was the same as the M1 Abram's and it has been modernized since its introduction (where it can be - its weight limit is an important consideration). As a result, I believe that your revert is uninformed and incorrect, and that the TAM should be included in the template. There is really no reason it shouldn't, as it was developed at a similar time as four of the tanks in those templates and is still in service, and will probably remain in service for a while. I'm going to add it back to the template, and I'd like to discuss it in the template's talk page. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded. You really need to let the other person respond before you take action. JonCatalán (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Done
Done --noclador 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
