User talk:RussianBear158

For tables, like those throughout that article, what is needed is the File name, we'll use the Wikipedia logo as our example, the code for which is: "[[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg]]" , and, so that we don't have a really massive image appearing in the table and ruining the format, a pixel sizing is added afterwards: "|100px" , and the final code will look like: "[[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg|100px]]" , which in the finished article will appear as:

For in-text images, it is also wise to add additional code, specifically: "|thumb" ; which puts the image into a thumbnail and keeps article formatting from being damaged, and then adding in a description such as "|Wikipedia website logo" . The finished code will look like: "[[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg|100px|thumb|Wikipedia website logo]]" which in the finished article will appear as:

Hope this helps!– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you as well mate.– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem :) --Novis-M (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a damn shame that, luckily the information as of 2013 is still available on the Internet Archive, but having something more stable and up to date in future would definitely be good mate.

I'll definitely have a look at BitnikGR, and I'll give you one also worth checking out: "specnaz06". The guy who runs that is an active member of the Russian MVD's Spetsnaz who uploads videos from training exercises and combat actions he's been involved in. Anyway, take care mate. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They probably use the same source as us for Russia. With that said the main problem with using Global Firepower as a source is that they don't state where they get their numbers from beyond that they come from publicly available online resources. We can at least confirm however that Warfare.be has been their source for Russia's numbers.– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember watching that one a few years ago, still pretty funny, no translation needed whatsoever. No way they'd make an ad like that for the Australian Army.– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any single source for equipment statistics unfortunately, but I do have a source for the Russian Navy's equipment makeup here: Russian-Ships.info, a source that lists out the equipment used by the Russian Ground and Air Forces: Russian Military Forces, and here you can find a listing of not only the Russian Air Force's plane numbers, but those of every other air force as well: World Air Forces 2014.

Yes, a lot of Russia's equipment is sent to the Eastern Military District, and that's largely a left over from the era when Russia and China were rivals of one another and prior to the formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which no one really has felt urgent enough to rectify. In light of recent events such as the economic deals between Russia and China, as well as events in Ukraine, this might change. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Ballistic Missiles do indeed belong to the Ground Forces. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first orders for Glock pistols by the Russians were made in 2010, unfortunately the original news piece is unavailable now but it was here: http://www.mvd.ru/news/35604/

There is also this page belonging to OSN Saturn, which displays the weaponry they operate including the Glock, which was first published in 2010 though these guys are part of the Federal Penitentiary Service: http://osnsaturn.ru/vooruzhenie/

With that said, thinking about it now, it might be a bit of a jump to link it directly to the Serdyukov scandal, but considering the age of the original Glock deal and timing of the controversy (October 2013), they are probably related on an indirect level more than anything else, so I have changed the statement accordingly.– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks like a good place for finding reference material, worth keeping an eye on at least.– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you there mate, send it.– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a reply via email.– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you go to the main articles about the mig 29,s27,tu22m3 you 'll see the following numbers under operators:110 mig29, 53 s27s,53 tu22m3 do you think they should be added on the naval air force section on the page. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, the references about mig 31 and s 24 numbers are under operators in their main articles if you want please transfer them, second what about the naval section you promised to look at the sources which I told you about the numbers mig 29,s 27, tu22m3.Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok remove them no problems but you should have told me.Aubmn (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time before removing, talk with me, I was very positive with you trusting you, you already reverted twice engaging in edit warring without going to the talk page.Aubmn (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problems I hope we continue to work together.Aubmn (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I answered you at User talk:Steelpillow#List of currently active Russian military aircraft. Also, I trimmed some of those Notes a bit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you are right when you said that Russia probably has more than 400 tanks. The article states that 400 of their tanks were acquired in the early 2000s. They probably received more between then and 2011 and perhaps a few prior to 2000. So what I understood is that 400 of their older tanks are due to be upgraded. So how many do you think we should put in the article? Would it work if we said that Russia has 550 tanks (according to the IISS), and 400 of these are due to be upgraded?DanieB52 (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, maybe you can help me. Did you used the Military Balance 2015 for looking the numbers? If so, have you got the eBaook of Military Balance 2015? You can answer in your comment page. Enthusiast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.181.88.72 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the book, but me and other editors of the page use information from warfare.be and other websites.You can ask somebody else, I am sure somebody has that e-book.

RussianBear158 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]