User talk:Anir1uph/Archive 10

Thanks

 * Thanks! Glad to have helped :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 10:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Traitortanmay - Indian Army
yes I do have reference to my edit
 * Can you please provide them here, or add them to the article? And please don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages, so others know who has posted. You can read some of that on the welcome box I posted on your talk page. Also, keep in mind WP:BRD, and WP:3RR. Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 13:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

INS Trikand
Thanks for your message of appreciation. You may like to know that another batch of images were obtained when the ship left Portsmouth, UK, on 16 July. These were from a better, higher, closer, vantage point; so the various weapon systems could be photographed in close-up. There are 63 raw images, too many to upload to Commons. However I'll give you access to them via Dropbox, from where they can be downloaded if you supply an email address to brian@nuclear-weapons.info. George.Hutchinson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the opportunity! I am delighted, and have sent an email to the above-mentioned email address. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 15:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EL/M-2238 STAR, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ghz (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) 10:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Not important? :D
'' Anir1uph (talk | contribs)‎. . (6,926 bytes) (-105)‎. . (Reverted to revision 564465034 by Green Cardamom: that info not important, nor is it confirmed. Turkey denies this. so adding it as a fact is not appropriate, IMO ''

Israel fighter jet coming from Turkey to bomb Syria is not important? Well not confirmed yes, but not important??? .... :D:D:D:D:D

I 'm really curious in which world wikipedia's moderators leave :D You know in order to write/edit/delete a matter with geopolitical aspect you must have at least a basic idea about the current geopolitical status, official statements, coalitions, the status quo and generally what is happening around the world :D:D:D Chefarov (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not important because it is a rumor, but was added as a fact. Every rumor about Israel should not be added to Wikipedia, specially if there is a real possibility that it could be false. See WP:NPOV. Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 17:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And dragging Turkey and West Asian politics and accusations into an article about P-800 Oniks missiles is a bit WP:UNDUE. A section already mentions the sale to Syria, and Israel's alleged bombing of the missile location. Any further addition of unconfirmed details is POV -pushing. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 17:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kolkata-class destroyer
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Kolkata-class destroyer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- 00:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting the review. I will be available for any edit-request or problems in the article. But due to some other commitments, I may not be very quick in responding. Kindly give me, at max, a day to respond to any such requests (I will be taking much less time than that to respond, but I am just playing safe here). Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 00:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is INS Saryu (P57) the other article you talk about in your review note? That was created and expanded by me too :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 00:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kolkata-class destroyer
The article Kolkata-class destroyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kolkata-class destroyer for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- 15:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Given this article just passed, I wondered if you were interested in improving this article for a GA nomination? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Anir1uph!Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @QatarStarsLeague: I will keep working to find info to add to INS Aditya (A59). Thank you!
 * @Antiochus the Great: Thanks for helping me out, in getting the article pass GA review. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 21:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * 5 Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Gurkha Rifles


 * Indian Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Gurkha Rifles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing comments
The first links Faizan put up were linked to the Economic Times and Rediff.com, not TIME and Indian Express. I made my earlier comments on sensational media thinking the first two links were still there. These users are after all, master manipulators in disruptive editing. I'm not withdrawing my entire comment, just the bit about sensationalism. I don't see the point of strike out for that. --Vanished user indfoijwe3ty (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would still ask you to use the strike out, as what you are doing is confusing, and may appear border-line problematic. Strike-out is actually apt for these situations, when you want to change your comment in any way. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 08:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It shouldn’t problematic when my basic comments are still there. I just removed a few words of assumption. I reserve my right not to use strike out.--Vanished user indfoijwe3ty (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * These are the edits in question. You have not only re-factored your comment, but have also removed entire sentences. And the major problem is that those are comments that have been directly replied to by other editors like User:Prabash.A. In such cases you really must not remove them - only redact them first and then correct them. Please read WP:REDACTED. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 09:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Mirage 2000
Hello Anir1uph,

Regarding the edits on: List of active Indian military aircraft

Let me give some details first,

A total of 49+10 = 59 Mirage 2000 planes (including 7+3 = 10 Mirage trainers) were purchased in 1980's and 2004.

Five lost to crashes (excluding two trainers) according to Daily Mail

6 - 10 lost to crashes (including two trainers) according to defenseindustrydaily

51 were reported to be in service in 2011 which are to be upgraded .... Dawn... This means the rest (8) either crashed or are unserviceable / beyond repairs / upgrades..

Two Mirage 2000 trainers crashed in February / March 2012 Daily Mail

The Mirage 2000 number was reported to be 49 in September 2012. IAF was also planning to buy two second hand Mirages from France or some other major operator. StratPost

So, this puts the number of jets at 49 ... How is it 51 ?? Correct me if I am wrong ..... Are some operated by India's Navy ?

--Maxx786 (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I arrived at the figure of 51 from the here and here. I used them as they are the latest sources. I don't know exactly how the fleet of 59 got reduced to 51. Some crashed, some may have been cannibalized, some may have already been replaced. I don't know. But the latest reports say that the IAF currently operates 51 planes. So I have used that. One even says that 2 are currently in France for upgrades, the remaining 49 would be upgraded in India. Regards, Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 09:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Same stuff (2 in France, 49 in India) was mentioned two years ago on many sources like 1 & 2... and now except TOI, I could find no other website giving the 51 figure. I believe they are referring to the 51 plane deal here ...... IAF was planning to get two second hand planes to get them upgraded under the deal ...Even though two planes out of 51 were lost to crashes, the deal obviously requires full payment..

According to India’s Fighter Upgrades: Mirage 2000s Finally Get a Deal (as of March 2013), the number stands at 49. There are no reports / evidences that the two were replaced.... So, we should go with 49 till further reports ....... --Maxx786 (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No this TOI report is latest - published on 28 Jul 2013. It explicitly says that 2 planes are currently in France, and remaining 49 will be upgraded later in India. That is the most updated figure available, so I wonder y do you want to go to old figures. And TOI report is not the only one, earlier reports too have cited the 51 Mirage fighters, see this, this, this and this. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 09:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am actually quite surprised that you could find no other website giving the 51 figure. See this, this, this, this, this and this. A whole range of reports have said there are 51 Mirages in the IAF fleet. 2 crashed, and must have been replaced. I don't know how or when. Or may be there were 53 aircraft before the 2 trainers crashed. I don't kno. But what I do know is that according to the latest sources, the IAF currently has 51 Mirage 2000 fighters. That should be enough. What you are doing is counting/speculating/WP:OR. If you find reliable sources that say that the IAF has a 49-aircraft Mirage fleet, feel free to discuss those sources. We can find a way to add then to the article then. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 09:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1 is a 2011 article while the two crashes occured in 2012,

2 (published in July 2013) only mentions of the two planes being upgraded in France; nothing about 49 rest,

3 4 are January 2012 articles ; crashes occurred in Feb / March ...

So, there remains only TOI report which is disputed.... If two second hand planes were acquired by IAF to replace the lost ones, it must have been reported ,, and in India, media reports everything about defence .....That's why I want to go with the March 2013 article which is quite clear....--Maxx786 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In reply to: "Or may be there were 53 aircraft before the 2 trainers crashed. I don't kno."

There are numerous sources which put the number at 51 (as of 2011) like Dawn, AINonline and many more ....

In reply to: "and must have been replaced."

Do you have any evidence to support your claim ??

--Maxx786 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Those sources were added by me to show you that the fleet strength of 51 was/is very commonly cited. But why do you think the July 2013 report by TOI is unreliable? Those were second-hand planes to be procured, mostly from the French Air force itself. It does not surprise me that those were not reported. The Indian media did not report any earlier crash of the Mirage either - it was only with difficulty we could find sources for them. Here is a list of 7 crashes + 1 later crash = 8 total crashes out of 59 purchased aircraft = 51 remaining planes. I don't know if that is reliable or not. Look, I am not in the air force, nor does the IAF website list the number of its aircraft. So I think we should go by the latest July 2013 reference, which states quite clearly 2 + 49 = 51 planes. Look, I don't have to provide u with a reference that says 2 more aircraft were purchased. I just have to provide a reference for the current/latest number, which my reference very clearly states as 51. I am claiming nothing about how that number was reached. It is you who are trying to do your own research by counting 6-10 crashed, 49+10 planes purchased etc. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 10:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The airforce had 51 planes, 2 crashed. then it had 49. It said it will replace the planes by buying 2nd hand from France. Then it signs a 3 billion US$ deal with France to completely upgrade its 51-plane fleet. Now why would the air force pay for upgrade of 51 planes, but expect to get only 49 back. that would be laughable, and would certainly be reported in the media. But that has not happened. They are paying to upgrade 51 planes, they shall receive 51 upgraded planes. My cited reference states that very clearly. I honestly fail to see the problem here. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 10:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This mentions 7 crashes till 24 Jan, 2007 while two more crashes were reported in 2012 ... So, 59 - 7 - 2 = 50 .... Still its 1 less than 51 and we don't have a source except a disputed TOI report which still gives the 51 figure ..... So, If you think the media found it unworthy of reporting IAF's acquisition of two second hand planes to replace the lost ones, then carry on .....

CLOSED ... --Maxx786 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

List of wars involving India.
The reason I removed the flag map of British India was because it is incomplete, portions of the Kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir is not shown that is why I had removed it. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Are you sure the map is wrong? I believe that some part of Kashmir was never part of the British India (Kashmir and Jammu (princely state)). If you have the correct image, can you try sharing it with me, so I may try to correct the existing image. In the mean time, feel free to remove that image from that article. I have no objections :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 16:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As you can see in the J&K's princely state page it shows that Aksai Chin and Shaksgam Valley are part of the state but on the British India map of wars involving India doesn't show. All of the princely state and beyond were annexed by the British during their rule over India just like their expansion of Northeast India. I'm sorry but the correct image doesn't exist right now in Wikimedia Commons. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * How about this? File:British Indian Empire 1909 Imperial Gazetteer of India.jpg? Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 17:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that one I will add that in Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Source added in Durga_Nagpal.jpg
I have added of source in Durga_Nagpal.jpg file. (Gokulchandola (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC))
 * Umm BTW, as per WP:NFC, i do not think the image can be used in the article. It is better to remove it right now, and ask for help from an editor with more experience in working with non-free images. No, I am not one of them. :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 05:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Durga Shakti Nagpal
Hello! As you are one of the main contributors of the article Durga Shakti Nagpal, i am here to inform you that the article is now nominated for WP:DYK. The nomination can be found at Template:Did you know nominations/Durga Shakti Nagpal. Although it doesn't necessarily have a good chance of passing, for numerous reasons, i wish you good luck with it. Please try and address any issues that are raised there by reviewers. I and many others will also keep an eye on it and provide help. Good Luck and Good Job! §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 06:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I understand, and will do so :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 11:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Russian submarine K-18 Karelia
An editor has pulled this from the prep area because he believes that the hook is substandard. As the person who copy edited the article, I would appreciate your input. SL93 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * Thank you :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 09:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Paschim Express
Hi Anir,

I was planning to creat an article on the 12925/26 Paschim Express but it seems that there is already such an article on wikipedia which redirects to a film by Subhash Ghai called Love Express. Any idea on how to get around it? Superfast1111 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! You can go to the direct page by going here - Paschim Express. You can edit that page, and don't forget to remove the redirect code. I have watch-listed that page. You can make your edits to it, and i will help if i see any problems. Hope this helps.
 * Also, when you go to Love Express, just below the article's title on the left, you will see the following - "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Paschim Express)". You can click on that blue link on "Paschim Express" to get to the re-direct page in future. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no link anymore on the Love Express. Anyway i have created the article. You can now work your magic on it. One other thing - Abhishek191288 has added some link to Borivali railway station. I could not understand what he did. Can you pls explain it to me? ::Thanks.
 * Superfast1111 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You did not see that small link because you had already created the article on the redirect page, so the redirect page did not exist anymore. :) As for Borivali railway station, the entire article has only 2 references, and the "Platforms" section has no references. You need to find more reliable references for the subject of your articles, and add them. Your articles will not be deleted as they are actual places on earth, but you surely must try to add more references - preferably minimum 5-6 on every train/railway station article you have created. We usually like every paragraph to be supported by a reference. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

NATO sharing
My father was in SISMI,former italian military secret service.Many treaties are official ,others no.I wrote the reality about Italy,there rest are tales to make happy people (like the tale that man went on the Moon).Stone Ax like other treaties not officials are written in italian.Even the former President of the Italian Republic F. Cossiga confirmed these things.He even talked about french made nukes (so no NATO sharing) in the italian military areas.The article "Nato sharing" about Italy is really not close to the reality.I'm not able to set sources because i don't know well Wikipedia,but reality is far from this article that makes really laugh people of the sector that read it.I wrote reality..if you want to restore it you can,otherwise Wikipedia can stay in the ignorance.151.40.45.157 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand the problem. If you could add the website's link or address where F. Cossiga or anyone else has said these things, we can work something out. But those websites should not be blogs or forums. I am sure there would exist some sort of public record if the info is correct, as you say it is. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 13:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sub sinking
Hello..... Please check tommarrow's newspapers. actually put the content back because i thought it was some error. i change it back the way it was — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanthujohnson (talk • contribs) 15:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not how Wikipedia works. You cannot add anything without providing reliable sources that say the same thing. Most of the newspapers have an online edition, they publish the info online much before printing it on paper. I could not find any reference which says the sub sunk because of colliding with another ship. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 15:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Little help with Disambiguation link
I received a note for a Disambiguation link on the Maharashtra Sampark Kranti Express for Kota. I tried to fix my doing Kota but i get redirected to Rajasthan. How do i correct the link to reflect the city??

On another note,how have you been? Have'nt heard from you in a while. Superfast1111 (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey! I just fixed the 2 DAB links. You apparently missed those two while correcting another. I am fine, and I remain busy with my research work. I do manage to come here sometimes :) Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 17:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sixth-generation fighter
Thanks for the edit on sixth-generation fighter, I now see what the intent was. It does seem to still need some grammatical clean-up. We could either set that fifth generation clause off as an appositive, or re-phrase it. As it stands, the assignment of development status to either generation seems ambiguous.

What do you think about: "The sixth-generation jet fighter is a conceptualized class of fighter aircraft design more advanced than the fifth-generation jet fighters, which are currently in service in the United States of America and in development in other countries.

Or: "The sixth-generation jet fighter is a conceptualized class of advanced fighter aircraft. The sixth-generation is more technologically advanced than and will succeed the fifth-generation fighters, which are currently in service in the United States and under development in other countries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donpedronogal (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I welcome your suggestions, but I think this discussion must be done on Talk:Sixth-generation jet fighter, so that everyone interested may comment and suggest improvements. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 08:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

INS Deepak (A50)
I am undertaking an expansion of this article in order to prepare it for GA status. I wondered if you wished to collaborate, as you are a primary contributor. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, i will help as much as i can. i am busy these days in off-wiki work. Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 04:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)