User talk:Anir1uph/Archive 1

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Cognizance (festival) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Please read WP:EL before adding any more external links. In short - no external links anywhere in the article body.'' Muhandes (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am new to editing on Wikipedia, and so I am a bit unsure of what to do most of the times. But I am sure I will learn fast! And yes, thanks for placing the official website under the "External Links" category. I will keep that in mind! Anir1uph (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC) But you also removed a small grammatical error that i had corrected! Hope I can redo that! :P Anir1uph (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's OK, it took me quite some time to learn it all, I hope it will not discourage you. Feel free to leave a message at my talk page if you have any question or need any assistance. Best regards and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

leave a message :O
hi shukla :) humne yeh page khola toh usmein likha tha leave a msg.

toh hum yeh msg yahan chod ke jaa rahe hai. ok. . . . . . . . message

chod diya.

bye. :)

Amit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.241.177 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jet Fighter Generations
Hello. You recently undid my edit of the Fifth Generation Jet Fighter page. I would like to stipulate that I do not care and am totally fine with the undo, but in the interest of the truth I must say that almost all of the fifth generation fighter definitions available are based on marketing instead of technical reasons. So, while Sukhoi does consider the Su-35S to be a 4++ generation fighter, it is probably only slightly inferior to the F-22  or . The F-35 was designed for performance equal to that of the F-16. It has failed to achieve this performance;in the paraphrased words of Air Power Australia, they tried for mediocrity and failed. If the F-35 ever becomes operational (this is doubtful given the cost overruns, multiple serious technical issues, and failure of the basic design) it will be shot down in droves by both the Su-35S and the PAK-FA . I would also encourage you to look at the source I used, especially the table at the bottom of the page . Once again, I don't care, but I think that Air Power Australia is a much better (or intellectually rigorous) source than anything coming out of the Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Eurofighter, or the Russian Defense Ministry. The article seems to use Lockheed Martin's definition of a fifth-generation fighter (interestingly the F-22 is actually not a fifth generation fighter by this definition, as it has wideband instead of all aspect stealth. But I digress), and the other manufacturers have proposed different definitions, all of which happen to be better for their respective designs. This is not, I think, a coincidence. In the words of another defense analyst who is not associated with Air Power Australia: "1. APA comprises career engineers, pilots and air power planners, and defence scientists,  many of whom have invested their working lives in building Australia’s defence capability from the inside; 2. APA has no financial stake in the outcome of any acquisition program within Defence; 3. No one at APA has a career to protect within Defence; 4. APA is linked to a deep and extensive international network of air power experts;..." The same is not true of most Defense Department employees, the aircraft manufacturers, and a good proportion of those with views on the future of airpower in the US. I apologize for the overly long post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.33.80 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refer to Fifth-generation jet fighter. Whatever ausairpower.net says, it does not supersede the specifications and performance expectations provided by the manufacturers and operators. Please keep in mind that a wikipedia article is not a discussion page, so views and speculations are in general frowned upon. Your comments are welcome. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. I can now see that by disagreeing with the Lockheed Martin definition I am implying that "fifth generation" is a legitimate way to categorize fighter aircraft instead of a way for aircraft manufacturers to market their aircraft. It would instead be far better to class aircraft as "High capability" (F-22, Su-35S operational) or "Low capability" (all other operational aircraft). The ultimate measure will of course be how well the respective fighter types fair in actual air-to-air combat against each other, but this has not happened since the Vietnam War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.33.80 (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Anir1uph/Sudarshan Laser guided bomb has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sudarshan Laser guided bomb, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Source information needed for File:Sudarshan laser guided bomb.jpg
Hello, !

It was really helpful of you to upload File:Sudarshan laser guided bomb.jpg. However, in order to keep and use new images, we need to know their original source.

If you can edit the description page and add this information, that would be great. If you're not sure how or need help, please ask at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! B  music  ian  02:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Sudarshan (laser-guided bomb kit), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! B music  ian  05:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

File permission problem with File:Sudarshan bomb.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sudarshan bomb.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add 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 .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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 criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sir, if you would please take the time to visit the [| description page of the image] and read the section "Summary", sub-section "Source", I have provied the URL of the image.(Direct link) Please scroll down to the bottom of this web page. You will see that the author V2 has clearly given permission to use the image under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales (CC BY 2.0). Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies; seems you're right, I had overlooked that cc-by tag on the source website. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I also had obtained permission via email from the host web-site, where they have stated that there is no problem using the image on wikipedia.org. I have forwarded the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
 * Can you help me in finding the appropriate tag for Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK? Where can I find it? I have looked here - File copyright tags/Free licenses but could not find the tag for UK. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting, I never noticed we don't have dedicated templates for all the possible combinations. They apparently do have them on Commons (yours would be commons:Template:Cc-by-2.0-uk). I guess it wouldn't be too problematic if you just used the standard cc-by-2.0 template and then maybe added a manual link to the UK version underneath for the sake of correctness. Or you could move the file to Commons right away (that's actually the recommended place to upload files like this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there was no template for Cc-by-sa-2.0-uk, I have created the Template:Cc-by-2.0-uk and placed it in Category:Creative Commons copyright templates. How do I move a file to Commons? Anir1uph (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of countries by Nobel laureates for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of countries by Nobel laureates 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 Articles for deletion/List of countries by Nobel laureates 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

need help
how do we revert multiple edits of a vandal in 1 go by twinkle, thanks -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  21:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ok i got it, this feature works in firefox but not in chrome. do you use tw with chrome ??-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I just selected the option to enable Twinkle from My Preferences. And then use the TW drop down menu at the top of each page. And to revert multiple edits, goto "View history" of the page, select the 2 versions you want to compare, then on the comparison page, you will see 2 more options due to Twinkle. Is that good, or should I give more details? Anir1uph (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I had already read about it and know fully well about reverting and page history (both with and without twinkle) Its just that the 3 options of rollbacking are not coming on wiki on chrome, neverthless i am able to see them on firefox. may be this script isnt fully compatiable with chrome . -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  08:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I use chrome, and it works perfectly. maybe those links are not loading due to a slower net connection...I really don't know. Anir1uph (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * somehow its working now, Eventhough i havent changd anything, neverthless, thanks for the response. regards--  Ð ℬig XЯaɣ   16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A token of appreciation
Thanks a lot! Anir1uph (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Thanks a lot man! Anir1uph (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome!.and thanks for re-editing my edit and improving the language.As I already told I'm not so good at authoring articles! Regards Srikar Kashyap (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Blue Water Navy
Hello, Anir1uph! You recently reverted, in good faith, one of my edits to Blue Water Navy. Unfortunately I could not read your explanation for this reversion because it was too long for the comment field. Would you please be kind enough to discuss this on the article's talk page, where there is already a section on 'Continuous At-Sea Deterrence (CASC)? Many thanks for your help. Thom2002 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me here! I just did that here! Anir1uph (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Anir1uph....Recently(Today)...a user and an IP have added Korean Navy, Japanese Navy and Russian Navy in the emerging navies section..with of course no references.I have removed the unsourced information and started a discussion in the Talk.Please comment.Thanks! Srikar Kashyap (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why were my rightly sourced changes reverted without explanation?
Agni V's range is more than 5,000 km. (source1, source2 and source3 & I could give more) Kanwal Sibal was India's foreign secretary for almost 2 years and his comment adds a new dimension to the domestic reactions. I thought the threshold for inclusion was verifiability and not the truth. (source4) Hence, I'm wondering what is going on? "DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366"  (Talk?)   12:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the launch of the missile, there has been a flurry of edits, reverts, counter-reverts, propaganda and conflict on the page. I had been explaining and providing reasons for my edits/reverts and making the articles look encyclopedic. Some reasonably good edits might have slipped through my comb though, and i apologize for that. I am trying my best to keep the page clean. Thanks! Also, comments from the country's PM and Def Min are relevant, but in the long run, the comments of India's ex-foreign secretary would not matter. I am sure you'l agree. Notability is also a threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Anir1uph (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, even though the missile can go to 5800 Km, (I myself have updated this to the page today, citing from the DRDO chief's interview on April 1st), the missile has been tested only upto 5000 Km, not more. As such, that must be the range mentioned in the infobox. One cannot add a few thousand kilometers to the range of a missile without any official confirmation/test. Eg, North Korea's claims of making a missile capable of hitting the continental US are just that, claims. The DRDO Chief's claims are also on an equal footing. I hope you get my point. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agni V
I noticed a lack of discussion and explanation for reverts on Agni-V. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.   Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  14:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasnt trying to bite, but since the launch of the missile, there has been a flurry of edits, reverts, counter-reverts, propaganda and conflict on the page. I had been explaining and providing reasons for my edits/reverts and making the articles look encyclopedic. Some reasonably good edits might have slipped through my comb though. Thanks! I am trying my best to keep the page clean. :D Anir1uph (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern and I am glad that you are trying to keep it clean. but wholesale reverts without reasonable edit summaries are never appreciated. Its not correct to blame you as Mrt was depressed due to other incidents also, but this one added fuel to fire. Anyway i guess this issue is old enough and both of you have moved on. In future we should try to be a little more reasonable in edit summaries. cheers--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  20:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refer to this. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Air superiority fighter
I'm sorry but an old plane can't be a current air superiority fighter:there is no example of war where old planes are using as air superiority fighter.A mirage III (or F1) is just an air-fighter today,no more. --Kl4wY (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Both the planes are used by current air forces as air-superiority aircraft and were designed to be so. Hence they are included. A better solution will be to simple make the title of the section "List of Air superiority fighters". Anir1uph (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Hahahah! Thanks a lot! :D


 * .First Barnstar......that was a great one...and thanks for making it civil.....and accept my FB request... Srikar Kashyap << Talk >> 06:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup! My first! and fb accepted. Let's hope we can together keep Wikipedia, specially the articles we like, clean n updated! :D Anir1uph (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah......we both are interested in military articles... Srikar Kashyap << Talk >> 06:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell you that Srikarkashyap is now Strike Eagle!....  ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  Ω  15:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)



Thank you..
..for correcting my inapt inclusion of image about the range of Agni VI SLBM. You are indeed right. SLBMs don't have a static target-range from the border. I must clarify though I wasn't trying to "mislead" anyone. Thanks again. Mrt3366  (Talk?)   01:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you wern't trying to mislead anyone. I meant that the image was misleading. But thanks for the new pics! Maybe you can make a new one, with all the agni series missiles ranges as concentric circles, like the one currently given by ChanakyatheGreat. Anir1uph (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See if this one (at our right) is workable or not. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   13:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the image is cool but it lacks perfect clarity.However..it is acceptable...nice work...   ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  Ω  13:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lacks clarity as in? I may be able to improve it. Just suggest some changes to improve it. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * hint: they cant be circles, because for max range they will be launced from the tips of the indian subcontinent like Arunachal, Leh, Gujarat, Kanyakumari, Andaman Islands. Thats why the old image is not circles. --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  15:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly! the missile ranges would follow the rough outline of india. Btw, i did not understand why there are 2 white lines for agni 6. Also, Agni 1, 2 and 3 would also have to be shown, as they are the ones that are going to be operational for the next 3-4 years.. But great job! Anir1uph (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, please do not take range from Andaman n Nicobar. There has been no indication by the armed forces of installing missile silos or mobile ICBMs on those islands. The range must be taken from the mainland India. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No the missile range will not follow the rough outline, it will be a distorted ellipse. And Why not Andaman DRDO has clearly stated that even Agni V can be launched by canister. Besides we have a strong military base at the Andaman, what makes you think India will not deploy its missiles over there ? --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source
Hi, we share a common interest of mil hist articles, I thought of informing you about a wp:SPS pakdef.info the RSN discussion was here few editors here were inclined to add content from pakdef.info and had added it at a number of indo pak history articles. Even after the source was declared unreliable a lot of the associated content still remains on wiki articles with tags. feel free to remove unsourced and clearly incorrect statements--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  21:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Will do. I recently did correct the article Military history of Pakistan. Anir1uph (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool, I have rescued a dead link over there, please use it if you know of other articles where the old dead link was used, regards--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

NOTE SPS Pakdef.info link: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_108 Anir1uph (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Commented.
 * Something similar..commented on ur comment..  దṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ  𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ  ™  08:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  07:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Active Aircraft...how do we define it?
hi.....I agree not adding future aircraft in List of active Indian military aircraft...however....once see List of active United States military aircraft..it mentions even the future aircraft like F-35 Lightning II......what do you think? Thanks  ƬheⱾtrike  Ҿagle  ™  10:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The standard definition applies. If it is in the air-force, it is active, unless the air-force says it is being kept as reserve. AS you can see in the page F-35 Lightning II & List of active United States military aircraft, they say three F-35s have been handed over to the military, and are being flown by military pilots, not lockheed test pilots. I hope you see what i mean. Anir1uph (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yep......however..it is still mentioned in Marine Corps section.....with 0 active.....instead..how about a new Future Aircraft section.?  ƬheⱾtrike  Ҿagle  ™  10:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, so i went ahead and removed it from the Marine corps list. A Future aircraft list for where? the indian aircraft list? I think there is already a page for that, Future of the Indian Air Force and similarly for the navy. A separate page for a concise list would be great too. Anir1uph (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
For the record i am clarifying my view that they are Terrorist organisations indeed D ℬig Xray  19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you.

Momentary block
I blocked you momentarily by mistake and have unblocked you. My apologies. I don't see any autoblock, but if one turns up, post  here on your talk page and one of us will take care of it as soon as possible. Again, my apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem! :)

1964 Alaska earthquake
I'm glad you caught that... I was about to break bad ;) -- WikHead (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too! Hahaha! Limitations of STiki (and of course my own) :D Anir1uph (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Does STiki not have a whitelist (such as the one used by Huggle)? Users such as myself and Discospinster should surely be on it. -- WikHead (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It does warn users if we are about to revert edits by someone with more than 50 edits. That is why i checked, cz i thought something was fishy. And even more hilarious was when after 10 minutes of that edit, STiki asked me to judge my own revert on that page marking it AGAIN as potential vandalism. Even STiki users are not on any such white-list! :D So u can't relax, as there can be more STiki users reverting your and mine edits. :D Anir1uph (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, just saw your contributions. You, sir, must definitely be on all Wikipedia white-lists! :) Anir1uph (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a compliment! :) Thanks! -- WikHead (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Next time you are in STiki related discussions, you really should suggest a whitelist. This article was the subject of two bad STiki reverts back-to-back, and is living proof that the human eye beats automation hands down. I can only assume that STiki is a good powerful tool... yet a major problem if it's promoting the re-introduction of bad edits that have already been correctly addressed. -- WikHead (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will do so, and I also also ask a very experienced STiki user, who I collaborate with on other projects. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never taken a look at STiki so I'm not sure what all it entails. However, if the programmers we able to make use of the existing Huggle whitelist, it may prove to be a far more efficient tool. I think it's well worth suggesting. -- WikHead (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Got an invitation to join here Thanks Anir for Inviting me, however this particular case is a serious lapse on part of the STiki user, why ? STiki is by default based on Cluebot queue which is also used by other tools like huggle and Igloo, the best thing about STIki is you are extremely rarely beaten to revert unlike huggle and I make an optimum use of my time. regards-- D ℬig Xray   05:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The Stiki users who restored the incorrect version failed to see the Entire Diff Screen, before restoring. this is of course a common form of vandalsim where vandals repeat an article multiple times and/or copy paste contents of 1 article to another.
 * 2) There is also a serious lapse on the part editers who restored the correct version by removing the walls of text, Their mistake was primarily on the improper use of edit summary, eg Had they used a more informative summary, then it would have been far more easier to see the flag to be more careful before reverting, (however one has to be careful in reverting irrespective of the edit summary) Even the STiki users can modify  the edit summary simply by typing a more useful summary on the comment box before making a revert.
 * 3) Its actually a good thing that stiki sometimes presents reverts by STiki users whom it feels that they have erred. As Anir has said Stiki gives a warning before reverting regular users to be double soure about the revert and template.
 * Hey, how's it going? I'm WikHead. :) To clarify what I mentioned above about the whitelist, is that it seemed odd to me that a STiki user was even alerted to a potential problem following a revert made by User:Discospinster (both an admin and a high-profile vandal fighter)... but then again, looking even closer, it now seems more unusual that the STiki user arrived on the scene nearly an entire day later. Perhaps STiki's automation actually had nothing to do with that user being at this article to begin with. I agree that the reverted summary may have been a bit insufficient, but believe that user should have recognised it as the standard rollback summary and investigated the edit a bit more closely before taking action. -- WikHead (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you (DBigXray) completely. It was a bad revert. But at first glance, to me and a previous reverter, it just looked like someone had blanked an entire article. The edit seems just like a regular article blanking to both of us. One would have to go through ALL of the (some 200,000) characters to see that it is actually a repeat (which i quickly, though after reverting, did, btw). What me and WikHead want to suggest is a White-list like huggle. As as you have pointed out, Huggle is quite fast, reducing the time the Huggle user has to properly check an edit before reverting it. But a STiki white-list seems like a good idea. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes WikHead you guessed it right, STiki diffs are often not very recent with some even going a month old, Actually these are those edits that get get a bad rating on Vandalism Detection algorithm but the BOT is reluctant to revert due to lack of past history of vandalism and prefers to pass it to a human to decide, or those edits that somehow missed the WP:RCP and Huggle users. STiki makes no distinction between an admin or a user who has made more than 50 edits in article. I guess the principle behind it is everyone can make mistakes. and admins do make mistakes if they are reverting an article they dont have much knowledge about. Having said that I am not entirely shooting down your suggestions of Whitelist, I believe this had come up in past and you are free to leave a note on Talk page of WP:STiki about the possibility of white list.
 * @Anir, yeah thats good that you understood the fallacy in your earlier revert. As for the length and difficulty everyone can revert "He is a piece of Shit" in a blink of an eye.  In fact my past experience with Huggle shows that User:ClueBot NG does a better(faster) job with such cases and I was often beaten to revert by the bot. But the vandalism such as the one mentioned above is the real reason why Human interference is also needed and why a bot cannot revert this. In my opinion its not efficient to show the same diff to so many of the huggle users, This is one area where STiki optimizes. -- D ℬig  Xray   08:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To Anir1uph - The diff alone can often be a bit deceiving. If STiki allows you a view of the table of contents, this is often a good place to detect duplication at a glance. I'm personally in the habit of paying close attention to section headings while scrolling and reviewing. Seeing multiple reflists, EL, or see also sections, or even multiple clumps of categories is usually a good indication that something's not quite right...
 * And to DBigXray - Fully understood as I know we're all human and prone to accidental, good faith mistakes. I can recall instances where IP users have tweaked something behind me that I completely and accidentally overlooked, as well as a time when I needed to tweak an article behind Jimmy Wales... and he's the last guy we'd ever suspect of editing abusively. I guess what alarmed me about this, is the idea that an anti vandalism tool was sniffing edits made by users who are known to be consistent good faith contributors. I'm satisfied with the explanation you've provided. :) -- WikHead (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the table of contents is not shown in Stiki. but Unlike huggle which shows you one diff at a time, wp:STiki combines all the changes made by the user in a single diff as compared to the previous version. this was a recent feature added to it and helps if someone is adding one copy with every edit to the article, or makes few disruptive edits and a final constructive edit to bluff the huggle user, -- D ℬig Xray   08:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

An ICBM for you!
Hahahah! This is a good one! :D thanks!

Discussion about GAGAN
Could you help me with the final completion date of Project GAGAN? Thank you. Mrt3366  (Talk?)   06:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure of it myself. Will look into it right now! Anir1uph (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the following info use full
 * Official ISRO timeline of launch, and satellites to be used. This, i belive, provides excellent latest schedule.
 * TOI article on Jan 23 2012, says "Once the system is operational, by late 2013 or early 2014"...
 * IBNLive news article on Aug 12, 2010, says "To remove India's dependence on foreign GPS signals, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) plans to launch seven Indian satellites in the next five years." This may be a little outdated, but provides some reference for the expected timeline of launch, before the delays hit in 2010.
 * Another news article from Aug 2010, same as previous one. Anir1uph (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving is not working
Your talk page has:

I think it should be (I use MiszaBot too): I hope it helps. Brendon is here  06:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking out for me. I read about archiving syntax and then also referred to User talk:Muhandes, who is an experienced editor. The ordering is same as he has. Also, the bot runs at a particular time each day...i just installed archiving a few hours back, lets wait for at-least 24 hours. Thanks for your suggestion, i will definitely look into it. Anir1uph (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * the first archive is done after some time, in my case it was done after 3 days. which led me to think that I had not done it properly. I guess the delay is for you to read and decide upon the parameters and choose the best archive methods as per your needs. -- D ℬig  Xray   11:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:DBigXray! :D Anir1uph (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, I should have checked your talk page history first. You're right and I was perhaps a tad imprudent to presume that you previously didn't know about archiving. The thing is, I have a relatively slow Internet connection and an impatient mind, I saw that you have comments that were last responded to months ago, so you know I thought, I ought to caution you. Never mind. Cheers  Brendon is  here  08:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey its not a problem! And, i must thank you, both, for looking out for me! :D Anir1uph (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, from STiki !
Thank you! Anir1uph (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!
Hahaha! Thanks! It is pretty hot in India these days :) Anir1uph (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 ϮheჂtriԞe  Σagle  Sorties  14:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * again...15:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

3D modeling marketplaces
Thank you for greetings and clarifying Wikipedia link rules. There are several reasons I would like to suggest CGTrader to a list of online 3D marketplaces. Unlike other online shops that take roughly 50% of the price, this online platform is beneficial to artists and enables them to sell and receive royalties directly from customers. It is more a social platform where 3D artists can build their portfolio and sell 3D models. Also, the other shops like (CGSignal and Archi-pedia) mentioned in the article are quite nonessential and amateur compared to this platform. Waiting for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marius Kalytis (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not have any experience with 3D marketplaces. I saw addition of links that i found more to be like advertisements. Still, if you find the link appropriate, then before adding that particular link, and removing others, please start a discussion on the article's talk page, to notify other editors or build consensus; and mention that in your edit comment. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips. What is edit comment? Is that hidden text, which will be visible only in edit mode? Marius Kalytis (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Edits comments are the things you must write as your edit summary, briefly describing the changes you have made, so other editors can understand the reason behind your edits. It is available just above the "Save Page" option on the edit page, above the option to add a tick to "This is a minor edit (what's this?) Watch this page". Try to always use it while editing articles on wikipedia. on talk pages/your own user-page, edit comments become optional. Anir1uph (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverts
Hey, why the reverts of the two minor edits? The first was just to add in the noncontroversial fact that vermouth is aromatized in addition to fortified, and the list out the traditional types of botanicals used. In fact as it stands the first setence isn't entirely accurate, because vermouth is not just a fortified wine, like port or sherry. As for the deleted paragraph, I deleted it because it's from a 60- year old article, and to the extent it even makes sense, is no longer true. --Ascf1976 (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome Ascf1976! Your edits were reverted because what may seem very obvious to you, may not be obvious to others. Wikipedia has a policy of supporting any edit (except the usual grammar/syntax/layout) with reliable references. That is why I reverted your edits in good faith. Please see your talk page for more info that I have posted there. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks a lot! any particular reasons (edits) for this? :D Anir1uph (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers, Riley Huntley  (Click here to reply)   01:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about possible inclusions in List of ICBMs
Since you and I have both edited that section in the past. I thought discussing some possible changes with you first. In this section, I am thinking about including the K 4 missile's second version (5,000 km range) since it is under-development and has the capacity to traverse the continent and beyond. So what do you think? Please give me a tb tag when you reply. Mrt3366  (Talk?)   08:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you can definitely include it. I would like to work together on this. Anir1uph (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrt3366  (Talk?)   08:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also check that in this section it says that the range of Agni V is "more than 5,000 km", this info is less precise than what is available today and dated. Would you mind if I correct that? (You may do it too) Mrt3366   (Talk?)   08:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did that! Anir1uph (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol thumbs up.svg Thanks, And please check these three following diffsdiff1 diff2diff3
 * Are my changes valid? Mrt3366   (Talk?)   05:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not understand the reason behind your 3rd edit (removing JL-2)...if you could explain it please...Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, i get it, you tried to separate sea based and land based ICBMs. that is fine, but dt must be done for all other countries too. Will help. Anir1uph (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Why don't you help me with that? (I tried in vain to gather info about the SLBMs of other countries like France and UK)
 * I see that you wrote, "Cfact not needed, main article wikilink is enough." I think you misunderstood the reason behind my use of cfact. Neither the touted range nor the purported MIRV capability is corroborated by the original article. Here and here(reliable sources) they contradict both the claims about range and MIRV capacity. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   06:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and corrected the exaggeration about range and MIRV capabilities. Is it okay? I hope it is :). Mrt3366   (Talk?)   07:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah that it fine (specially with the ref, no one can argue :D) AS i said earlier, i will help in this for sure. Regarding removing cfact, i feel that even if the required info is missing, it should be added to the main article, not here, as this is a very concise list, and any speculation and debates (along with their refs) should be there in the main article of the missile. Like i have done for the Agni-VI and Surya in the page. What do you think? Anir1uph (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. Brendon is  here  04:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Brendon, I've 1 question for you. Who are you stalking? Anir1uph or me? hahahaha!!!! Mrt3366  (Talk?)   04:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm an all-seeing eye.  Brendon is  here  04:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anir1uph, you wrote that the separation of land-based and sea-based ICBMs must be done for the other countries too. Well, what about United Kingdom and France? they don't have land-based, at least not officially. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   06:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yaah they donot, that is i was unsure about how to carry out the division in the article. Perhaps we can make only country wise divisons, and include all info about a country under its heading and do not make any separate sections for SL-ICBMs. Anir1uph (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ but should I strongly recommend that we start a RfC for that in the article's talk page before making such a move! Mrt3366   (Talk?)   06:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * invited to butt in! The list is country wise for obvious reasons, and in my opinion it should be the way it is now. good to see both of you collaborating . Mrt I am waiting for you to remove that sad face on your talk page -- D Big X ray   06:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry DBX, I will remove it soon enough. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   08:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I meant that the section List of sea based ICBMs can be merged back to the various countries, that it need not exist separately. Do you both agree? If you do, then we can start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Anir1uph (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I already told you that I agree and I also think that we should start a RfC on the talk page of the article. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   18:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hythe Town F.C.‎
You reverted an IP edit at Hythe Town F.C. and automatically marked it as vandalism. I suspect it was actually edited in good faith. Lists of non-notable people in teams is inconsistent with WP guidelines and this particular article has been the topic of a discussion between ChrisTheDude and me  here and here in which Chris acknowldeges that such lists are inconsistent with WP:NLIST. I suggest that restoring the article to a version without the list might be best. Regards.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I marked the edits as test/vandalism. Seeing blanking of material without reason, i made that decision. It might have been an edit in good faith, but i thought the possibility of it being vandalism were more. But i agree, had it been done by a registered user, i would have marked it as a good faith edit. Plz continue your discussion with ChrisTheDude and form consensus on this issue. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't descend to condescension. If you check you will see that I have been around for more than 7 years and have more than 35000 edits to my name. I know about consensus. I was trying to be tactful in pointing out to a new editor that you had made a mistake in reverting. I may be more straightforward next time.  Velella  Velella Talk 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your reply! I do not think that knowing about your large edit history should influence me in any way. Even without knowing about your edit history, I thing i was respectful to you. The language you use to talk to me is up to you, i only request you to be civil :D Please know that i wasn't being condescending, and it was never my intention to seem that way. Anyways, I believed that the edits were vandalism (my reason is mentioned in my previous reply), you thought they were done in good faith. And that is the end of it, right? Cheers! Anir1uph (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)