User talk:ObscureReality/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RE:FSC or GCS

That's great, I'm also of the opinion that it needs to be cleared up, just not sure how. (and it certainly isn't copy/paste moves) Your opinions would be most welcome on the FSC talkpage. It would be great to get a discussion/action going on how to clear it up. Woody (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CUTPASTE. Cutting and pasting the page breaks the attribution of the edits. Woody (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on where you were thinking about doing it? If you want to update the current FSC page then I would say go ahead and do it. If you wanted to create a standalone GCS or Type 26 page then I would say wait until the discussion has finished and we know where the articles are going to end up. Woody (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Computer generated image of the type 26 gcs released by bae.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Computer generated image of the type 26 gcs released by bae.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Kirov class battlecruiser

According to the page history, you are responsible for moving the page Kirov class battlecruiser to its new location of Russian Kirov class heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser. While I do admire the attempt to be correct in the classification of these ships the fact of the matter is that the page was moved without a request for move, and as a result of this the page is now incorrectly named insofar as current guidelines governing the naming of ship and ship classes are concerned. As a result of this I have petitioned for the page to be returned to its original name. Since it is my belief that all parties privy to the event be informed of the potential change, I am leaving this message here to inform you of my request to move the article back to the title Kirov class batltecruiser, and to offer you a chance to voice your own opinion on the move, which you may do here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Almirante Brown class

There is a message for you at Talk:Argentine Navy#Almirante Brown class--Toddy1 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Please beware of 3RR on Indian Air Force, as this isn't a clear case of vandalism by the the other user. I've issued a formal templated warning to the other user. BilCat (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi. I've added the rollback flag to your account. Please remember to check out WP:ROLLBACK; however I'm sure you understand the proper use of the tool. Happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really appreciative mate. Thank you.

RfA

It's quite common for a person's first RfA not to be successful. Mine wasn't. It's no big deal. People are saying that they don't think you'll blow the place up, but that you don't yet have relevant experience in admin related areas. If you try again in 6 months time after gaining experience at AfD, at dispute resolution and at dealing with various backlogs you might be more successful. At some point fairly soon someone will close the RfA citing Wikipedia:Not now. It's up to you, but it tends to show the sort of judgement that people like to see in an admin if you closed the RfA yourself, perhaps making a dignified closing statement. The option is yours. We've seen people insist that an RfA is kept open so they can get feedback from others. This is allowable, but some people get annoyed at that, pointing out that Wikipedia:Editor review exists for that. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As SilkTork mentioned above, I have just closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Thank you for offering yourself as an admin candidate; while the community did not choose to promote you at this time, you did receive a fair bit of advice on how to proceed. It often takes admin candidates several attempts to have a successful RFA (I had three myself), and the key to succeeding is to take that advice and use it to improve yourself as an editor. If you would like me to reopen the RFA, please let me know. Should you want to solicit more feedback from the community, you may want to consider WP:Editor review, or WP:Admin coaching if you'd like more experience in administrative areas. Again, thank you for throwing your hat in the ring, and I hope to see you back at RFA in the future. Happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed a whole section

You removed a whole section without creating a similar page of Warships under construction in the Ships of the Indian navy page. Hope you'll discuss before making such changes and on agreement create a new page for Ships under construction if needed. Streakingpast (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need a separate page, most of the information is a duplicate of the Ongoing expansion and Future prospects sections on the main Indian Navy article anyway. The rest is ill sourced speculation which doesn't belong, so ill kindly ask you revert your own changes.

I have added an authoritative source to the article and revised the list of ships. — Augmented Reality^Woe90i 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears sir you are a sockpuppet and are currently under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat. — Augmented Reality^Woe90i 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Chanakyathegreat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Streakingpast (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Linestwice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Future RN Carriers as part of the RFTG?

Future RN Carriers as part of the RFTG? What's your source?Phd8511 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Carrier Strike is no longer a standing Royal Navy Deployment. It was replaced by the Response Force Task Group as the Royal Navy's primary Task Force. Once the Carriers come into service then RFTG will naturally evolve back into Carrier Strike. It is also possible that Amphibious capabilities will be in mind with future Carrier Strike and will perhaps keep the existing title of RFTG. I worded my edit summary wrong, that's where this confusion is coming from. — Augmented Reality^Woe90i

Do you a a reference? Yes you may be correct but reference? the RN's page on the RFTG didn't say thatPhd8511 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much speculation I'm afraid. In any case once the new decks come into service Navy Command will have reorganised a couple of times, at least.

ALR (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it all depends on HMS oceans replacement. Its worthy to note the MoD and Ministers have already suggested that the future aircraft carriers will be capable of supporting the Royal Marines and their equipment. If Ocean inst replaced then carrier strike will have to incorporate amphibious capabilities. Indeed, this is speculation at the moment, but to the point, carrier strike is no-longer and I think my edit summary caused some confusion when I removed carrier strike. — Augmented Reality^Woe90i

Ability to support Royal was part of the requirement. Politicians can generate as much hot air as they like, but these things are already in the main designed.

ALR (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes

The Changes to Ships of the Indian Navy to List of Active Ships of the Indian Navy has resulted in certain issues. One is that the information about ships under construction and planned ships went missing. Second their commissioning dates went missing. It must have been easier for a viewer to check the commissioning date and figure out how modern is that ship. The length of the table has been reduced. The image is reduced to 150px. This be increased to thumb size. The Notes section is useless at the moment and can be removed. Linestwice (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ships under construction and planed are already extensively mentioned on the main Indian Navy article. — Augmented Reality^Woe90i

ok, I will expand the Indian navy page to accommodate information that's missing.Linestwice (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The section after Auxillary ships is in a mess. Are you continuing with the update and working with the edit? Hope you'll leave the page update in a cleaner way.Linestwice (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Im still working on the article. — Augmented Reality^Woe90i

ok, carry on. If you can accommodate date of commissioning instead of notes and increase table size and pixels setting to thumb size, it will be better.Linestwice (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The article need not be destroyed. It contains a lot of information and it's set in a beautiful manner. Don't need it to be removed by you and made a mess of the article.Linestwice (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the Admins to warn you from vandalizing the pages. Hope you'll stop.Linestwice (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't vandalized any article. I have recently made changes to the the article List of active Indian Navy ships and provided a complete ship listing for 2010 provided by the 'International Institute for Strategic Studies'. The IISS is a highly authoritative source and I trust the admins will see through your little tantrum. I have worked along side admins before and they know me to be a decent content editor. I see your new to Wikipedia and I think you just need to be showed the ropes a little. Cheers.

It appears sir you are a sockpuppet and are currently under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat. — Augmented Reality^Woe90i 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Chanakyathegreat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Streakingpast (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Linestwice (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Indian Air Force

I left a reply to your message. Sumanch (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Query

You have substituted referenced data with unreferenced on a few occasions, with uninformative or lacking edit summaries. [1] [2] Please explain. Materialscientist (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

They were sourced in the main body of text in the relevant articles. Making changes in the info box to reflect changes. A bit more investigation in future? — Augmented Reality^Woe90i 10:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, but please turn "IISS 2010" into a complete reference in Turkish Armed Forces. Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Excuse me I forgot to add in the publications details. A Bibliography is ok? — Augmented Reality^Woe90i 10:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that what I would if I were editing. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Indian Air Force

I left a reply to your message in my talk page. Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietnoted (talk • contribs) 12:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You were banned for sockpuppetry. — Woe90i^Woe90i 14:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

list of aircraft of indian air force

hey your data is all wrong. india has--148--su-30mki:the indian defence minister said so in parliament itself. india has--51--mirage 2000s as india and france recently signed a contract for their upgrade and the number was clearly given as 51 india has--68--mig 29s as last year india and russia signed a deal for their upgrade.the number was clearly given as 69 then and with 1 crash it has reduced to 68. india bought 165 mig27s out of which around 38 or so crashed.that still leaves around 120-125. india bought 178 jaguars out of which 40 crashed leaving 138.

check the site "warbirds of india"-it gives all info on IAF crashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armyjawan1 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Those figures are no good to me or you unless you provide a citation. For example I recently updated the figures for the Su-30s to 146 and provided a recent citation to support the change. You need to go back and find a reliable source to support your changes. The problem with this though, is that you are most likely not going to find a more authoritative source than the IISS. As most online news organizations quote aircraft figures based on rumors and do not say where they source their figures. This doesn't really apply to newer air frames like the Su-30s as they are still being delivered and as such there is a lot more wealth of information out there. — Woe90i^Woe90i 14:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:SIGNATURE

Hi Woe90i. Would you mind making a color change to your signature? As it currently stands, I can't read it against a white background. Cheers! Tiptoety ^talk 06:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem mate. Hows this? — Woe90i^Woe90i 13:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That is better. Thank you and happy editing, Tiptoety ^talk 07:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Interceptor and Fighter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

list of aircraft of indian air force

see that's exactly what i meant. iiss showed the number of su-30s as 120, but know u know it's 146 isn't it? iiss based their numbers on the number of squadrons the IAF has. in the iaf each squad has 18 planes(i6 single seaters+2 trainers). indeed the number of squad of mirage2000 is two. i guess that's why they showed the number of mirages as only 36. but that's not the case. we have 51 mirages.many are in RESERVE. also some are used by isro(indian space research organisation) for flight testing etc. i guess they were also not included. but in a war all jets will be used. if you need a source just check-sipri. no better site than that ,right, you can download all the imports of weaponry indian has made from that site for free. please go check it. you will know that iiss is wrong, just like u found out about su-30s. the just subtract the number of jets crashed by going to warbirds of india. please use the links below--

                            www.sipri.org/
                            www.warbirds.in/Crashes/

please do check, you will find iiss is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armyjawan1 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)