Talk:Maintenance Command

Reinstate on IAF
Ex Sgt VK katiyar (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ritchie333, please explain very carefully how the above message contributes to this article or to the Wikipedia project in general. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sgt Katiyar was trying to correct a term in the article, from Kanpur (the city) to "IAF Kanpur" the airforce base (cf. RAF Biggin Hill), although I suspect they probably wanted Air Force School Kanpur. Since you reverted their edit for no reason I'm not surprised they wanted to query this, and they used the talk page correctly, saying that they had a source that backed up their opinion that the article should say "IAF Kanpur". As the Uttar Pradesh's main languages are Hindi and Urdu, it is not too surprising to find that Katiyar's English is not to the standard of a native speaker, and hence reverting their talk page message for no reason is, in my view, unhelpful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , have you gone crazy?
 * It's near-certain that he was court-martial-ed (and probably given a dishonorable discharge). See Pg-238, 310, 352 of the AFA Act, corresponding to the sections, mentioned by him. He is at any case, clearly aggrieved and deems WP as a forum where he can resolve it.
 * The above post contains a hell lot of private details including service ID, name, rough sketch of offenses et al that can be exploited. Hence, the stuff needs to be revision-deleted and he needs to be mailed about the potential harm that might be caused via his disclosure along with the fact that we are not a proper venue.
 * But, here, we have your noble interpretations, which FWIW, are wrong..... &#x222F; WBG converse 13:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above post contains a hell lot of private details including service ID, name, rough sketch of offenses et al that can be exploited. Hence, the stuff needs to be revision-deleted and he needs to be mailed about the potential harm that might be caused via his disclosure along with the fact that we are not a proper venue.
 * But, here, we have your noble interpretations, which FWIW, are wrong..... &#x222F; WBG converse 13:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But, here, we have your noble interpretations, which FWIW, are wrong..... &#x222F; WBG converse 13:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the above, and collapsed since this isn't a particularly fruitful discussion. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 20:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)