User talk:ObscureReality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Recon.Army, 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:Recon.Army. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Military of the EU

Hey Recon.Army, thanks for your note. I don't think this qualifies under the speedy deletion criteria, and I would recommend you take it to WP:AFD. It's a pretty vast and highly-referenced article, parts or all of which may be of use to others. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend that you instead use Template:Merge, since what you're proposing essentially would be a merge into the CFSP article. - SSJ ☎ 13:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've remove the prod you re added to this page, since the deleiton is contested. I also had to undo your AfD nomination, since it wasn't formatted correctly. If you want me to nominate the page for AfD I will do so for you. Otherwise, please make sure you understand how to nominate the article before doing so. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military of the European Union (2nd nomination) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the IndIAN air force

Hi Recon Army, There's nothing to protect at the moment. Instead they're a non-consistent bunch of figures from many sources, which probably use different counting rules. Eg. Do you count aircraft which have just been accepted into air force service, but not in a combat unit? aircraft in store, updated numbers from casualties etc? This means that the article is near useless as an exact source, and can only give general figures. Feel free to come back to me when one Wikipedia:reliable source (IISS maybe) has been adapted as the standard and is used throughout. Sorry if this is a disappointing answer, but the figures need lots of work. Regard Buckshot06 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Now we have one source, we will need to see if the vandalism diminishes. So we need to wait for maybe a week, then, if not, I'll probably go right ahead and semi-protect. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Recon Army. Thanks for your message. Would you please mind approaching another administrator, perhaps User:Nick Dowling? I am now extremely busy trying to finish some work which needs to be completed soon. Apologies Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request(Coalition Casualties Update)

1,733 killed(US:1047, UK: 281, Others: 405)

9,967+ wounded(US: 5,629, UK: 3,608, Canada : +400, Germany: 166, Australia: 120, Romania: 44)

Please update war in Afghanistan(2001-present) article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

Proposed merges

Hi, regarding your proposals to merge Military of the EuropeanHUnion and Military of the European Union, I remain neutral to them, and have therefore not listed either support or oppose - it's not my subject area. However, if you feel strongly about it, since the proposals have hardly attracted any comment, there is nothing to stop you being WP:BOLD and doing it - the bullets, if any, will start flying later ;) --Kudpung (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Accurate Sources not amount to vandalism!

Hi, I have given accurate latest sources, as India has sent Mirage-2000 and MIG-29s for Upgrade, no source will give inaccurate fleet number which will increase per unit upgrade cost, its simple Logic. I don't understand how you can call all the sources I have given as-Vandalism when you yourself have relied on some vintage "not up to date source". Please Provide a latest Source to refute my claims, Till them I will consider ur reverts as pure vandalism and remove whenever you change. Thanks !!!!!! Truth Prevails 17:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The source you are providing is not updated and incorrect! I am giving latest figures. If the source Provided by you never gets updated, it cannot be taken as "Word of God". Your threats are considered as Vandalism and this intolerance towards facts confirmed by various sources is more than Vandalism! It should be noted this is an open source not your playing field for vandalism! Truth Prevails 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Equipment tables

I think they look great and have no objection to them being added to the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Type 26 frigates

There will eventually be a need for a separate article but at the minute this is covered by the Future Surface Combatant (where you seem to have got the information anyway). Also please review Wikipedia policies about not asserting your point of view (WP:NPOV). The section

"Build these and don't cut them in terms of number of ships or capabilities, its time to save the Royal Navy and give them what they need to protect our country. Act on your claim that "Defence is the first priority" of government. Don't be the government that did what none of our enemy's have ever been able to do, destroy the Royal Navy"

is wholly inappropriate. Kind regards Mark83 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Type 26 frigate is very much a "work in progress" and the little information we have at this time on its possible design, etc, is covered in the existing FSC article. I recommend that if you wish to add anything new it should go to that article. We'll create a full and separate Type 26 article when those ships have actually been designed and ordered!! David (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had the time to respond until now. As the user above has mentioned, there is too little information at present for a full article. The design has just entered a 1-2 year design study and it will be a full decade before the first ship touches water. The article that a I redirected (not deleted) was basically a duplicate of the FSC article. I'll have another look and add any new information you provided unless you get to that first. Mark83 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

ARA

Any particular reason why you eliminated all images ? Also, the MEKO 140 class, which served in desert storm/desert shield, they are actually (light) frigates by Blohm & Voss but ARA traditionally do not called frigates their warships --Jor70 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:French Navy active ship list

Template:French Navy active ship list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TexasAndroid (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Fighter Aircraft in the IAF

I am in no way condoning the unsourced introduction of facts but the IAF does indeed have two Phalcon platforms in service as per this article. As such, I'm changing the article now but I wanted to let you know just incase.

Thanks, Vedant (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at the IAF Orbat on Milaviapress, it does list the number of in service Phalcon platforms as 2 so I'm not really sure what you were referring to when you requested page protection due to vandalism. While leaving blank edit summaries is a bad idea, please in the future be careful WHAT you label as vandalism when it really isn't. Vedant (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is, did you even bother to check the source or do you just randomly go reverting it. Next time please remember to READ an actual source before deciding to unilaterally revert edits and then leave some flippant comment on my talk page after I point this detail out to you. I'm sure you understand the importance of being civil? Vedant (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that this reliable source lists that one HAL Tejas aircraft is part of the Indian Air Force's OrBat. By your logic we should include that aircraft as well. That is unless you want to selectively pick and select facts here? Vedant (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of what a reliable source is (and I cite all my claims as a matter of routine). My argument is that I don't think MilAviaPress is a reliable source for several reasons;

1. As BilCat pointed out, it does not meet WP:RS requirements after consensus was reached elsewhere
2. It lists the HAL Tejas as part of the Indian Air Force, OrBat. The Tejas is not operational yet and is at the earliest due to receive Initial Operations Clearance only in December 2010 (as other reliable sources have pointed out). Thus, it cannot possibly be an operational aircraft in the IAF.
3. It relies greatly on third-party input from netizens which is why they openly solicit help from others for "updates"

When I reverted your edit to the list of IAF aircraft, I wasn't suggesting that we add the Tejas to the list (as I don't think it belongs there). What I was suggesting was that we not use a source like MilAviaPress because of it's aforementioned limitations. I would ideally like to go by a source like Globalsecurity.org but it appears they too have an out-of-date information such as suggesting that the IAF has 10 Tejas aircraft in service (where in actuality it has 0). I will continue the search for a reliable source of information but given the topic, I doubt accurate up-to-date information exists. Also, if I responded in anger it was due to the fact that you suggested I wasted your time by not thinking and sending a pointless message when you reverted an edit by an anonymous user who did actually instate the correct information (as claimed by the source) and not out of any nationalist pride. Vedant (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can see that you're a reasonable person and I understand your rationale for editing. I've had to deal with a lot of people pushing a pro-Indian POV as well and I've done my best to remain neutral and impartial. To cite an example, someone kept insisting that there were 150 SU-30 MKIs in the IAF as of April, 2010 here. My goal isn't to push any kind of POV but just to promote the facts.

I agree that the Orbat article grants consistency though as previously stated, I would still like to provide a more authoritative source. As far as I know, the IAF still hasn't inducted any of the Tejas jets into its fleet. However, you may be correct in stating that several Limited Series Production (LSP) aircraft have been inducted for the purposes of operational evaluation as some of these aircraft do have IAF markings. Unfortunately, information regarding this is sketchy at best (though I'd argue closer to non-existent).

The Indian Parliament does occasionally release information regarding military spending and equipment numbers but I'm guessing due to the security situtation, not all information is released. If any information is released however, it usually is done through the Press Information Bureau of the country. Occasionally, some information also gets released after an Indian citizen files a Right to Information request however, not being one, I cannot help with that.

Having said that, the two facts I'd like to correct are as follows:

1. The number of Mirage 2000 aircraft is 51, not 41 (See [1] and [2])
2. The number of Su-30 MKIs in the fleet as of November 2009 was 105 (As per the Times of India citation I provided you with)

Please let me know if you're okay with those edits and I'll go ahead and make them.

Thanks, Vedant (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

I've moved Template:Astute class weponry to Template:Astute class weaponry. I think we had a similar spelling hiccup yesterday on another template. It's worth checking your spelling when you're creating new pages. David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Displacement

Hello RA. Can you hold off on further changes to displacement figures for the Nimitz class? The figures on the navy.mil webiste differ from other official sources, and are almost certainly wrong. There is more discussion at User_talk:Gene_Nygaard#Displacement; we should open at new section at the Nimitz class article to centralize discussion. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I also ask that you use Template:Cite web when inserting sources please. Fourth ventricle (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Aircraft in the IAF

Hello again, Just wanted to let you know that another user has modified the numbers for combat aircraft in the IAF. I left a message on his talk page suggesting that he not change too many of the aircraft service numbers so that the majority of the numbers come from the MilAviaPress article and not from an assortment of various sources which would return the article to its previous state. Vedant (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, no doubt some of the aircraft have been retired or have been lost in accidents. By the way, if you ever want to source fleet numbers, check out this E-book on AviationWeek. [3] It's pretty helpful. Vedant (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in case you're free, one article that really needs major rework is the PLAAF. The entire section contains a ton of unsourced information and features inaccurate inventory numbers. Looking at MilAviaPress, Globalsecurity.org and the E-book from AW, none of the numbers match up and it's clear that there is a LOT of work that needs to be done there. I'm currently a little busy in the real world so I don't know whether I can do a complete overhaul of an article, but that's on my To-do list for now. Vedant (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you're also having some differences of opinion with User:Bcs09 with regards to the fleet size of the Indian Navy. Technically Bcs09 is right however as three Nilgiri class ships are still in service with the Indian Navy. According to Globalsecurity, they are to be decommissioned in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (one ship per-year). However, this hasn't happened yet. (See [4]). Thanks, Vedant (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nilgiri class ships

I had opened a [5] to discuss the matter. So if you have sources to provide, lets discuss it and then remove the ships. But until now, there is no information on the ships getting decommissioned. Bcs09 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re List of states with nuclear weapons

Hi I reverted your edit because I thought it might be adding too much detail to a basic table outlining states with nuclear weapons and estimated stockpile numbers. However, I am not fundamentally opposed to the new details. I am of course aware of the difference between strategic and non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons. We had previously listed operational/total warheads and the other columns in table would provide further clarification. I though would appreciate if you could start a discussion in the talk page and obtain consensus because making a major change to the table that has been there for months. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Great power are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Vedant (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Indian Armed Forces. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vedant (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, ObscureReality. You have new messages at Vedant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vedant

You may be interested to know that user:Vedant is an Indian nationalist and anti-British editor. The majority of his edits are either pro-Indian or anti-British. Vedant appears intent on promoting the notion that India is a great power, even a superpower. 88.106.127.218 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Economy of the United Kingdom

I have replied to your query. Jolly Ω Janner 11:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of russian ships

I see your changes, and that was be very inconsistent data from warfare.ru . I try to complete these data to all commisioned ships in russian navy now. Ships in repairs or reserve is still comissioned!!! Please dont change my repairs and fixes to these uncomleted data from warfare.ru. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornet24 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but that page is list of ships - not list of active ships! See list of navy of other states - for example USA. If you like have list of russin active fleet - build that page. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornet24 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

warfare.ru have INCOSISTENT DATA... For example: Russian Strategic Naval forces listed 64 active R-29R missiles for 4! Project 667BDR submarines - not 3 that is listed in warfare.ru... Decommissionig of some older R-29R missiles is reason, why K-506 Zelenograd is now prepared for nearby decommissioning. And that page is really "list of ships of the Russian Navy" NOT "list of the ACTIVE ships of the Russian Navy". For example: K-407 Novomoskovsk is not rusty shit (as you say at my page), but it is in overhaul and rearmament process, and will be planned in service for next 10 years! You cant delete this ships from that page - reason: Russian Navy HAVE that ships is their inventory! (Same is aircraft carriers and other ships in US Navy - if they are in reserve/overhaul - they are still ships of US Navy)

Right guys, slow down and consider things. I've merged the 'active ships' page, which is a WP:CFORK. As you will see from the AN/I thread note I posted, both Russian and Western navies have different ideas about whether a ship is actually in service or not. Recon.Army, warfare.ru is just another source - we cannot accept it as superior to Jane's or whatever else is being used. The proper route is to add the status-disputed ships you want to add to List of ships of the Russian Navy and to list explicitly there which source says so. Then readers get a flavour of the difficulties involved in counting operational ships - I doubt Headquarters Northern Fleet's assessment would match what U.S. Naval Intelligence would list or what Jane's would list; they all have different standards!! I will copy this to the other person involved in the dispute, and advise you both to use Talk:List of ships of the Russian Navy to work out problem issues. I know the Russian Navy's status reasonably well - I've published articles on it - and am quite happy to help you two work out areas where your two sources of information may contradict each other. Golden rule: list both sets of information, with the source attached, and let the reader figure it out - they're intelligent enough to know we may not all have a full picture. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Understand your points.. suggest we continue this discussion at Talk:List of ships of the Russian Navy to keep all the discussion in one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

List of current French Navy ships

Hi, a few months ago you removed essentially all the auxiliary ships from the article, which you replaced with a "Not yet finished". Is there any particular reason that, months later, the article is still missing its ships ? Also, as you seem to be one of the editors battling over the number of "commissioned" ships, may I ask where you get your information that such or such ship is commissioned ? The Marine Nationale does not seem to make a distinction between "commissioned" and "non commissioned" ships to me. Equendil Talk 12:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sloop is a Royal Navy term, the French nowdays use Aviso)

Sloop is a Royal Navy term, the French nowdays use Aviso.

Well actually "Sloop" is pretty much as close you can get to a literal translation of "Aviso". Hence as this is an En language article I stated "Aviso", as it is the formal French name (or category) that described this class, and then stated "Sloop" to define the literal meaning of Aviso. As it is sort of reasonable to describe a Sloop as a light Frigate then that is OK but then we have lost the opportunity to describe the vessels as the French Marine have, That is as a "Sloop" (an Aviso). This is why I edited the section to re-introduce the French term "Aviso", following in the tracks of the work of [Equendil] in getting the article back on track again, but I was only defining what an Aviso is rather than calling the ships "Sloops" By the way 'Corvette' is derived from the French as it is a French word in origin. I am a great believer in seeing a French ship described as a French ship, not by comparison or by direct naming conventions of another nations navy. I may be wrong on this but I thought the modern convention of a Sloop (an Aviso) was some somewhere between a Corvette and a Frigate. I also get a bit upset when En WP editors re-invent the world from an anglophile point of view. It was not WP but I have seen a photo of the ship Laperouse captioned as La Perouse by an Englishman even when you could see the correct name on the ship itself in the photo. I recently changed the name of the article on François de Galaup, comte de La Perouse to François de Galaup, comte de Lapérouse as the same sort of thing was going on there. "Aviso class. A sloop, (or light frigate) tasked for coastal anti-submarine warfare, patrol and defence including strategic submarine support and off-shore deployments" and ""(→Small Surveillance Frigates (Corvettes): should be light frigate)" It is the French Marine that call them a "Frégates de surveillance". Have a look at the discussion page, Some time back I copied the list off the Marine website. Great to see somone is interested, cheers. Felix505 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I must stress I was the one that that was re-instating the classification Aviso to the article and to the descpribtion of this class. Stating in a very small point size under theheading ""Aviso class. A sloop, (or light frigate) tasked for coastal anti-submarine warfare.." merely defines the meaning of "Aviso" when translated into English. Indeed a Sloop is a small Corvette and these ships do appear to be small Corvettes.

So what do you think we should be saying here That an Aviso is a Corvette and that these [D'Estienne d'Orves] class (type A 69) are a Light Frigate. Therefore an Aviso is a Light Frigate. I wonder why then the Marine then do not call it a Light Frigate and instead call it an Aviso which literally translates as "Sloop". Maybe because they only weigh in at 1100 tonnes, hence Aviso.

I agree though in that both Corvette and Frigate are terms that have a more French origin where as Sloop comes from the Dutch and was used by the RN as a classification or description of serving ships. If you seek a translation of Aviso you will find though that it is "Sloop"

I note that the WP article on Aviso describes them as... "Modern avisos have grown to become combat-capable ships, smaller in size than a corvette, but larger than patrol ships. They typically have roles in anti-submarine coastal defence. In NATO classification they are usually recognized as corvettes.". An Aviso at 1100 tonnes is around half the tonnage of a Floreal 2600 tonnes (Light Frigate), a 1/3 of the tonnage of a La Feyette 2300 tonnes (Frigate). This seems to make the ship a small Corvette. I have edited to reflect this: Aviso, is a Corvette or Light Frigate of 1100 tonnes tasked for coastal anti-submarine warfare, patrol and defence including strategic submarine support and off-shore deployments. Thanks for your interest Felix505 (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that [Equendil] has supplied the information that "Aviso" is an abbrevation of Spanish "barca de aviso", ie "dispatch boat". Aviso probably rather under describes a F7 designation Frigate. I do understand that the Marine work more on a view of "role" rather than old fashioned notions of displacement and similar. I think the headers will need some attention in general. That is why I started by doing a basic translation of the French Marine descriptions on the list appearing on the articles Talk page.Felix505 (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

K-152 Nerpa

Hi, this submarine is now commissioned only in Russian Navy. By the end of the year she will be leased to India Navy, but it will be still ship which is property of Vojenno-morskego flota Russijkej Federacie. What i mean - for that 10 years of contract she will be still commissioned ship, but will be on inactive status, but for this moment is a active ship of Russian Fleet--Hornet24 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Blue Water Navy

Hi there Recon.Army, we could use your help over at the Blue water navy talk page. The situation appears to be esclating and I feel the opinion of an experienced editor would be valuable.

The situation is this; the user Bcs09 objects to this edit,

(Original text) "The United Kingdom has recently retired the Harrier jets that fly from the nations aircraft carriers, leaving the Royal Navy without a carrier strike capability."

(New text) "The United Kingdom has recently retired the Harrier jets that fly from the nations aircraft carriers, temporarily leaving the Royal Navy without a carrier strike capability".

I have included temporarily to signify that the abandoning of carrier strike is not a permanent strategy for the Royal Navy and that they intend to re-generate that capability in the coming decade. I believe this information to be important.

Any input or opinion you can offer to the discussion linked to (also to the status of the RN as a BW navy) will be immensely valuable, thanks for your time. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)