User talk:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

« D Trebbien (talk) 04:51 2007 December 26 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Army

Please do not just revert my entire statement as if it's worthless; I'm trying, slowly, to raise the quality of the whole article, and there was a phrase on the Cold War, Korea etc which could have easily stayed in as the basis for a proper WP:LEAD - lead section. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi RGDA. Can we please start a dialogue on improving the Turkish Army article? I have a good amount of data from many additions of the IISS Military Balance etc, plus outside, third party information which can be obtained on the Turkish Army, such as the Library of Congress Country Studies. (WP:SOURCES says we should not base articles on what organisations claim about themselves - see also specifically WP:SELFPUB). I also can claim some relevant professional experience. But it would be better if we avoid doing what we've done so far and go around reverting each other. The gold standard articles for armies are United States Marine Corps (an FA) and Russian Ground Forces (an FA I wrote). I would like to gradually move this article towards that standard, but would welcome your inputs. Please do feel free to drop a line on my talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Modernisation section. I am not trying to say that the Turkish Army cannot do these things, all I am saying it that it is the Army itself that says it can - in line with WP:SELFPUB, a self-serving source. I strongly believe the fact that this is a Turkish military claim should be noted. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Buckshot has asked me to comment on this. As an administrator and coordinator at WikiProject Military history I'd suggest that both the Turkish military's claim and the US Government's assessment be included in the article, with the article's text making it clear where each viewpoint is sourced from. It would help if the methodology used in making the conflicting assessments could be included - the Turkish military's statement is a bit vague (eg, what does "at short notice" mean here?) so it may be the case that both references are correct as the definitions which are being used are different. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Res Gestae again, I believe, given that the Chief of the Army is always the next Chief of Turkish General Staff, and that given the Army's preeminent role in the Armed Forces, that a one-line politics note in the Turkish Army article is appropriate. (Anything more than that would have to wait on specific Army involvement in politics material). Do you mind if I put that back in? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "Army" is often used wrongly by the media to describe the "Armed Forces" (Army + Navy + Air Force + Gendarmerie + Coast Guard) of a country; such as in the case of "the Turkish Army's intervention into politics." This is not a fully correct definition, because other branches of the Turkish Armed Forces are also involved in such decisions and their application. For instance, the National Security Council has generals/admirals from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Gendarmerie. The Gendarmerie arrests people in case of a military coup. So it's way more complicated. The fact that, according to the Turkish tradition, the Chief of the General Staff is chosen from the Army commander has nothing to do with this. It has been this way even in the 1920s, decades before the first ever military coup in 1960. In Greece, for instance, the Chief of the General Staff is traditionally chosen from the Navy commander, as Greece is mostly scattered through islands and the Greeks consider themselves a nation of mariners. Turkey, on the other hand, is mostly made up of solid land and very few islands, hence the Army commander as the Chief of the General Staff. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point you're making, and I ws not trying to say that. The only point I want to make is that, given its preeminent role within the Armed Forces, the KKK/Land Forces/'Army' will generate more of the political involvement of the Armed Forces than the two less important services. How can we negotiate this so some form of acceptable wording can be inserted? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the Turkish Armed Forces article, but it's already mentioned there (extend that section if you wish.) As I said before, during a coup, the arrests are made by the Gendarmerie, not the Army. Even the Navy/Coast Guard is involved (e.g. taking the politicians to Yassıada Island.) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing a great job in the Turkish Army article by the way. It has improved dramatically with your contributions. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

Hello there, thank you for your nice message, I was very flattered. Well I try to do whatever I can with my limited time and means. Enjoy editing. sincerely Gryffindor 00:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome :) It is a pleasure to work with editors like you who make genuine and sincere efforts to improve the quality of articles. Keep up the good work and I wish you all the best :) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agusta A129 Mangusta

Thanks for your additions to the Agusta A129 Mangusta page on the T129. YOu listed a source in text form, and we'll need to convert that to a footnote reference shortly, and I'll show you how to place that where ever information comes from that source. Once it's set up, the ref style is easy to just copy to where it's needed.

Also, I'd eventually like to have the T129 on its own page, probably at TAI T129, as this will give us more space to cover each variant. Since TAI now owns the rights to further production (except for Anglo-Italian models), it makes sence to list it under TAI. There are a few things I think we need before trying to split the page, however. First, a good image is needed, but it has to be one that is free, in the public domain, or is a fair-use iamge from TAI, and usable under both US and Turkish laws. Second, we need updated Specifications for the T129, not just the A129 Int'l. If the source you got the other information from has a good sampling of the specs, then go ahead and add them to the A129I specs section, and change it to "T129". I first planned the split over a year ago, but information has been slow to come out, at least in English. We don't have to be in a hurry on creating the new article, as having one good-length article is better than 2 short ones on closely-related aircraft. Again, thanks for your help, and I hope to be able to work with you on improving this and other aircraft articles. - BillCJ (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello :) Savunma ve Havacılık (Defense and Aerospace) magazine, which is the "closest" (in terms of staff and relations) to official Turkish Army sources in Turkey, constantly updates the available information that we have regarding Turkish military projects like T-129, Milgem, etc. They also provide loads of images. But it's extremely difficult to get images without any copyright problems, because the Turkish military usually prefers to retain some secrecy and allows only "close buddies" like the Savunma ve Havacılık magazine to take any photos, in most cases. Other good opportunities for "civilians" to take photos of the Turkish military equipment include the military fairs, particularly the IDEF fairs in Ankara every year. For instance, we saw the Kasırga missile for the first time in 2006, but it turned out to be in service since 1996. Yıldırım missile, paraded for the first time in 2007, turned out to be in service since 2000. We don't know practically anything about most ballistic missile developments (which started with the J-missile program, likewise top secret) just to give a few examples. So a lot of details of the T-129 will remain in the shadow until the very last minute. The details which the Turkish Army deems "harmless" are already being published in the magazines that are close to them, so I'll give you a hand in updating such information whenever possible. As for moving the T-129 information into an article of its own, do as you please - I'm sure you'll do a great job and you have all my confidence and backing. :) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ottoman Empire. 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. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually reverted myself, not someone else. I then reinstated other edits after making the necessary grammar corrections. I will keep correcting factual errors and grammar mistakes whenever/wherever I spot them. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your large number of edits is making it a little hard to figure out exactly what the situation is. However, 3RR is blind as far as who is in the right (both you and Rateslines have been warned). I'm not inclined to block either of you, but you need to work it out on the Talk page. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K., thanks :) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One more thing

I noticed your issue with User:SpengbabAnnihilation (because Ataturk is on my watchlist). Your overall editing has been fine lately, just don't take it upon yourself to get sucked into all these revert wars. When one of these situations pops up, consider taking it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This allows you to edit in peace, and leaves dealing with a vandal to an uninvolved administrator. This might mean that you have to watch a page that is important to you exist in a less than perfect state for a few minutes, but it protects you against getting blocked in a 3RR violation. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind concern. All the best. :) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on May 6, 2008 to Turkey

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 10 days hours. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)