User talk:Militaryboy

Niestety połowicze uaktualnienie jest tylko mieszaniem. Stan jest podany na konkretny dzień i dopóki nie ukaże się jego oficjalna aktualizacja nie ma co poprawiać bo wprowadza to tylko zamieszanie (część danych zaktualizowana, część zgodna z datą aktualizacji), jednym słowem bałagan. Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [1]
• [2]

Radomil talk 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ja tylko zmieniam, to co "poprawiasz" błędnie. "31st Tactical Air Base" to nazwa oficjalna po angielsku - dałem ci link... Nie wyręczaj w nazywaniu jednostek MONu ;) Radomil talk 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nie musi. Grunt, że to nazwy oficjalne. Radomil talk 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nie rób zamieszania. 31. BL była jednostką SP! Tak, nie wyposażoną w samoloty ale jednostką była. Radomil talk 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To był wpis prewencyjny, żebyś znów nie napisał jak przy tej zmianie sprzed miesiąca, że 31 BL nie była jednostką tylko bazą. Pozdrawiam Radomil talk 19:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I looked at the source you provided for the claim that Poland has FPI Cougars [3]. I don't understand the Polish but the photo shows

Im 100% positive. The article says that polish MoD agreed to buy 30-40 Coguars and send them to polish troops in afghanistan later this year. They will serve with

XA-360 that are already in Afghanistan. --Militaryboy (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

To date, FPI hasn't received any order and the Polish forces have received no Cougars. The Polish army is not currently a Cougar operator. With your permission, please allow me to revert your edit.Dino246 (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up for an additional info on the coguars and I've found out that the Polish Army will recieve those Coguars as a military aid from USA. Therefore the poles will be the offical coguar operators without acquiring them from Force Protection Inc. If you want you can revert my changes and wait until proper information is released in english. --Militaryboy (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. It's still discussing a future event though. I don't mind that it's a non-English source but let's remove Poland from the operators list until they actually have them. OK by you? Dino246 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you already reverted your edit. Thanks! We'll put Poland right back there as soon as some of their guys are behind the wheel of one. Dino246 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source [4] the US military is loaning 40 Cougars to the Polish Army in Afghanistan. Does that make Poland an 'operator' or merely a 'user'? I'm not sure. I doubt very much the Americans have any intention of ever taking them back - this sounds like a back door way to give them MRAPs without having to go through a complicated political process of granting Poland military aid. I am adding Poland to the operators list with an "on loan from the US" proviso. Dino246 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Czlowieku jak masz pojecia na dany temat to nie edytuj artykulu." Nie rozumiem, mam edytować artykuły na temat których nie mam pojęcia? A Ty co, masz wujka w sztabie generalnym, że nagle stałeś się wyrocznią w sprawie przyszłości polskich sił zbrojnych? Mieciu K (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia opiera sie na zrodlach, a nie danych pisanych z glowy." Dane które były wcześniej, a także te które Ty wprowadziłęś też nie są poparte żadnymi źródłami. Cała ta tabelka to jedno wielke gdybanie. Domagasz się źródeł od innych a sam nie zamieszczasz źródeł.

"obecnie wprowadzane f-16 zastepuje su-22" nigdzie nie napisałem, że obecnie wprowadzane F-16 mają zastąpić Su-22. Su-22 powinny być wycofane w ciągu najbliższych kilku lat (około 2012) bo kończą im się resursy płatowców, jeżeli zostanie ogłoszony nowy przetarg to ze względów logistycznych duże szanse mają samoloty F-16 co nie znaczy że będą to F-16 C/D w wersji Block 52, mogą to być maszyny innej wersji a nawet samoloty używane.
"już w 2015 zakupimy samoloty 5gen" już za kilka lat (około 2015) MiGi-29 wykorzystają całe reursy płatowców, już obecnie ich wartość bojowa w starciu z nowoczesnymi samolotami jest symboliczna gdyż reprezentują poziom technologiczny wczesnych lat 80 XX wieku. Ich modernizacja jest mało prawdopodobna. Może Amerykanie się zlitują i pozwolą nam zakupić F-35A ze swojej puli. Biorąc pod uwagę wieczną prowizorkę i brak kasy w naszych Siłach Powietrznych (TS-11) to też tylko spekulacje, ale równie dobre jak spekulacje Panów z magazynów o lotnictwie wojkowym. Mieciu K (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

I'm concerned about all the excessive pictures in the Polish Land Forces section this dude is making a "train wreck" out of the page. I think we should revert back to an earlier section, how many f____ing pictures is this freak going to put in, just look at how sloppy the Air Force page is.... any thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Pais (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MBoymap.PNG. I noticed that 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.

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Black Red White is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Red White until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

]

File source problem with File:41 elt.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:41 elt.jpg. I noticed that 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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the

]

File permission problem with File:Pzl.png

Thanks for uploading File:Pzl.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on