This user may have left Wikipedia. RGS has not edited Wikipedia since 20 September 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
RGS is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, welcome to wikipedia. I have noticed that you are working on this article. I spent quite sometime last year working of this article. But still lot of improvement is needed before it qualify for a good article candidate. You can go through the previous peer review and A-class review it has undergone.
Some of the changes you have made are are good and some of the are not. Primarily the Aircraft inventory section. For example the use of NATO code name, use of bold type face, use of foreign language. These information about these specific aircraft can be obtained from the respective aircreft's ariticle. That is why they are linked. Using them disrupts the flow article. The other point is the use of citations. All citations must be done using citeweb template and should use consistant format.
Thanks for replying. I thought you were new. Template:Cite web is a citation template makes referencing a lot easier. Check its manual out by clicking the link. The reason I made those changes was because I wanted to make the article more concise. Including lot of technical specs and information in brackets (like this) not only disrupts the flow of the article but also bloats the size unnecessarily.
You can go ahead and make changes as you please. If you are thinking of a major change like deleting the "future aircraft" section, do it in your user page, or mine, first. We can go from there. The "under development" section is not badly organised, it is a cesspool and will require a lot of work.
I did not want to come across as rude when I posted the previous post. I am sorry if I did.
Looks good but too long. The reason is compared to the rest of the article this is section has undue weight. An encyclopedia article about an organization provides information about the organization and just tidbits about its future. So such a large section about just the future comes accross as crystalballing. This is the organization. But soon it will be that. This misses the purpose of the article; it must be completely objective. I would say 1/3 of that size will be sufficient. Sumanch (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely! I realized it was the material from the main page. Main page has too much on content, that is why it received harsh criticism. A smaller version of that will be perfect. Sumanch (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Look in the source #1 and 3 in the main page they will give ~1306 aircraft. That was before the induction of the Phalcons. So 1309 will be pretty accurate. Bharat Rakshak is not considered a neutral source. That is why I had to look hard to find alternate source other than BR to cite my claimes. Don't try to cite through BR specially about contentious material. Sumanch (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Bharat-Rakshak is not affiliated with Indian military. It is run by some guys who are retired military and Indian military enthusiasts; and they have been around forever. That is why they get more access to images, articles from senior staff and things like that. But because they represent the Indian point of view, in wikipedia, they usually run into problem with NPOV standards.
About the aircraft, BR numbers represented the higher end of the report even when the IAF fleet size was decresing. Therefore, we will need a second source to varify. Sumanch (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Number of aircraft in IAF — I think what we can do, is say I has over certain number of aircraft in its inventory. We can pick 3 or 4 sources and use the one that is showing the least number. Then put a note that because the IAF does not disclose the exat number of aircraft in its inventory exact number cannot be determined with precision. What do you think? Sumanch (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think, in this case, we can use a prose instead of a list for this section. It is concise, does not get into technical discustion, and does not get into speculations. So for the current aircraft we can include small paragraphs of prose. The future section created the biggest problem with the size. But we have resolved it. The history section is just right; any larger, and we will start to run into problem.
I guess we can omit that. We should get a clarification first.
We will have to improve the Land-Based Air Defence section. I dont think Prithvi II has been inducted in the IAF. The last thing I could find was that it was undergoing user evaluation. Sumanch (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have an issue with the History section in the present form. Having 15 two to three sentence sections disrupts the development of the prose. Furthermore, I think, information in that detail will be more appropriate for the the History article.
I think, It will be better if we can subdivide the section in to eras. I think - Formation, Pre-independence force, Post-independence growth and wars, and Current mordarnisation are better subsections. What do you think. Sumanch (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Rohit, although the aircraft are based at HAL's facility in Bangalore, they are considered to be in the IAF's aircraft inventory. Thus while no aircraft are in service (being that IOC is only in December), the aircraft is being flown for testing and operational evaluation purposes. If you do have any issues with that, then by all means revert my reversion (I will not contest it). Thanks, Vedant (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you look at this picture (for example), you'll notice the IAF markings as well as the IAF registry (KH-2011). There's no contention that the plane isn't operational but it is technically in the inventory right? I don't think that the Tejas NP-1 is in the Navy's inventory and I'm not sure about the status of the F-35 though I'm guessing it would eventually be assigned to a test squadron much like the F-22 and F-23 (See 411th_Flight_Test_Squadron). Regardless, it's not a major issue for me so whichever solution makes you happy is good. Vedant (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think the information provided is accurate although if you disagree, then I urge you to make the edits you see fit to rectify that. Vedant (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Also just as an addendum to the above, similar markings and registration numbers can be found on LSP-2 (KH-2012) and LSP-3 (KH-2013) and LSP-4 (KH-2014). Thus while they are not part of an operational squadron, they are flying with IAF markings and reg numbers. Vedant (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Rohit, I've written some answers in response to your questions on my talk page:
It is not against Wikipedia policy to revert edits that constitute blatant vandalism/useless content. Generally if someone makes a change that you don't agree with and it's not vandalism, then you're encouraged to discuss it with the editor in a civil fashion. See WP:Rollback for more. You can use Twinkle which has rollback features (available to all auto-confirmed users) or you can just request permissions for usage of rollback here.
As far as I know, (though you may want to confirm this with someone else) all articles are peer-reviewed in the same fashion. Additionally, you can nominate an article for good article status or featured article status if you think it's appropriate. Keep in mind though that nominations can be a trying and intensely scrutinizing procedure so you should generally only nominate an article for GA or FA status if substantial changes were made and you believe the article has a good shot at getting the nomination. Also know that multiple nominations by the same person for the same article are looked upon less favourably.
To move articles, I suggest you look at this help section. As you are an auto-confirmed user, you are entitled to move articles.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill[talk][prof]21:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for uploading File:First IAF AWACS.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, This user (User:Tawoo) made some changes to the article (breaking down the numbers of the aircraft in the infobox). I don't think this helps the article and I don't think the numbers are correct. Sumanch (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:GECB Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, RGS. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, RGS. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello RGS! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk22:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey there Gremaldin, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Gremaldin/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
