User talk:Recon.Army/Archive 3

Royal Navy Edits
Hello,

I'm not very happy that after spending several hours researching and updating the Royal Navy page, with references, you have spent a few seconds deleting all my work.

The information on the page IS out of date and untidy and my account gave much more informative without prolonging the sections needlessly.

I would like to know why you have undone my work and whether you intend to correct the inaccuracies another way.

Thank you.

Brianm358 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianm358 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

From User talk:87.4.232.145
Thank you :) I'll think about it. --87.4.232.145 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.


 * List of current French Navy ships (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to SSN and LPD


 * French Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to VPS

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sock report
Hello, please see my comments and those of the CU at the SPI report you just filed. Can I just ask something for clarification: when you reverted this, was there a concrete reason for the revert in terms of bad content, or did you do it purely because you felt the other user should not have been using two accounts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, yes looking back over his edits its obviously a case of a new-user forgetting his log-in details and there's no indication of disruptive behavior linked to his edits. I'll restore his most recent revision of the page. Cheers.TalkWoe90i 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

NIZAM-E-NAU : NEW WORLD ORDER OF ISLAM
Hi. You tagged this as db-vandalism, but you should only use that for contributions which seem intended to damage the encyclopedia, or at least not to care whether it is damaged. This was fairly incoherent, but it is clear that it was about a book, and a search shows that it's a real, published book with an ISBN number. It may well not meet WP:Notability (books), but it's not speediable on that account. It was speediable, though, as a copyright violation; when you get a passage written in a very unencyclopedic style, it's always worth feeding a few sentences into Google, which will often show that it is from a Facebook page or (in this case) from the introduction another book by this author.

We have an undesirable reputation for being unfriendly to new contributors, so you do need to be careful about what you label "vandalism." An article about this book may be possible - I'll give the author some advice.

Thank you for patrolling new pages - a tedious but absolutely vital task. There is good advice at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for taking the time to point this out to me. I will definitely do a quick Google search in future in similar situations. I think the word Islam and the phrase New world order didn't help. Cheers, see you around. TalkWoe90i 16:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Turkish air force
AS-532, CN-235, F-16 and SF-260 were all license built by TAI in Turkey. For this reason, I have added the Turkish flag to the appropriate boxes on the table. Please do not undo this change without providing a substantial reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zartus (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The aircraft origin is still the united states, the F-16 is an american aircraft. Being built under licence wont change that.TalkWoe90i 00:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat: sockpuppets of chanakya still on the prowl?TalkWoe90i 06:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith deletion and bad faith marking of vandalism
You marked cited edits in the article Blue-water navy as vandalism this was the text:

[[italy|🇮🇹]] Marina Militare(Italian Navy)
Italy has the ability to surge deploy two carrier battle groups protected by modern destroyers, frigates, and submarines worldwide when required, currently its carrier battle group capacity is only matched or exceed by the US and possibly Spain. Italy deployed a carrier battle group in the Indian Ocean to support sustained operations in Afganistan after the September 11 attacks and subsequent War on terror in addition to combat operations launched from her light aircraft carrier operating closer to home in the Mediterranean Sea during the Libyan civil war and Kosovo War. The Marina Militare also has three San Giorgio class amphibious transport docks each able to transport and land a Batallion of troops and their vehicles. As a nation signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Italy does not operate ballistic missile submarines.

This is clearly not vandalism and appears to be either a bad faith edit or negligent behavior on your part for not reading the edit before marking vandalism. I have reverted your deletion.79.176.218.166 (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That edit is a poorly cited attempt by you to tickle your own POV. Sorry buddy but I hate to break it to you, Italy is not a blue-water navy and is arguably nothing more than a 3rd rate navy with the trappings of a minor regional power. You say "Italy has the ability to surge deploy two carrier battle groups protected by modern destroyers, frigates, and submarines worldwide when required", really? Italy only has enough harriers to deploy 1 aircraft carrier at half-load, I do not think that qualifies as "surge deploy" and is surely not a "carrier battle group"! Regarding Italy's destroyers and frigates, Italy only has 12 of them, and apart from the 2 Horizon class frigates the rest are FAR from modern. Current Italian frigates are generally older, less capable and displace-less than most other classes of escorts.


 * Again I stress, there is no citation to support the Italian navy as a blue-water navy. I assure you the vast majority of editors who edit the Blue-water navy article will agree that your edits are purely POV pushing and merit reverting. TalkWoe90i 15:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason that the Italian Navy meets the criteria of a low level blue water fleet is that Italy was able to deploy a single battle group for a sustained period to the Arabian Sea, and was able to surpass the projection capability of the UK in the Med during the Libya operation, much as the former Dutch battle group in the early 60's HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_(R81) was able to project limited power to New Guinea. I could really care less about the Italian Navy but from an objective standpoint if it is able to deploy even one battle and with power projection capability far from a home port, at least 200nm per the article, it qualifies as blue water.  Perhaps there should be a distinction from traditional blue water fleets and recent or emerging fleets that are able to deploy a carrier battle group in blue water, even a small one as the Australian "Blue Water Fleet" mentioned in the article(Melbourne operated a standard air group of four Skyhawks, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972) but are not one of the big three with strategic boomer subs as well, though Italy would be alone and that seems very POV.  In any case the matter was worthy of consideration even if you feel the addition and citations are against the POV of most editors, and worthy of honest discussion given the very subjective nature of the article and term but was surely not anything even resembling vandalism79.176.218.166 (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opinion and original research does not belong on Wikipedia. Also, can you not remove my text from my own talk page in future? And no, Italy did not "surpass the projection capability of the UK in the Med during the Libya operation". The UK flew more combat sorties than Italy and committed a larger number of more capable assets during the Libyan campaign. The Royal Navy had a far stronger presence in Libya than Italy. The Royal Navy deployed HMS Ocean with Apache attack helicopters flying 100s of combat sorties. RN Frigates, Destroyers and Minesweepers took the lead in the Libyan naval blockade and Nuclear submarines deployed a number of Tomahawk cruise missiles. Likewise, the Royal Air Force also deployed a larger force of fighters and strike aircraft than Italy and dropped/fired more bombs and cruise-missiles on Libyan targets than Italy. The RAF also deployed AWEC and ISTAR aircraft enhancing capabilities (Note, Italy doesn't even operate these types of aircraft!). Another interesting fact is that Italy started to run-out of bombs in under two months of the campaign. While the UK was deploying smart-bombs and Storm-shadow cruise missiles without any significant shortage. It was only towards the end of the Libyan campaign that the UK and France seriously decided to re-stock weapons. The British Army deployed Special forces along with Royal Navy special forces. So Im sorry, but Italy deploying 1 small aircraft carrier with a handful of outdated harriers is not going to "surpass" the UKs military might and power projection, you are just blinded by wishful thinking.TalkWoe90i 14:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies for cutting up one two many steps on the thread in your talk page, it was my error in editing. The real reason for me leaving anything on your talk is that you deleted edits not for content but in bad faith claiming vandalism, that is not acceptable behavior even to an IP, FYI I have not reported it.  Yes, my comments here on a talk page are OR as they are not in a wikipedia article but your actions and emotion here shows serious POV and bias against what I had posted.  I can accept your factual arguments that the RN is probably a more capable navy and from your research I can accept that they deployed significant forces beyond what Italy could form a carrier, but I don't have a dog in the fight you don't seem to understand I am uninterested the Italian Navy, which I POV agree is like Spain an expensive national prestige force searching for a mission,  other than as it concerns total international force levels and capabilities.  What you have not done is refute that at least in 2001 the Italian Navy, which has similar force levels now, met the requirement for a blue water navy by the standards set in the article by operating a sustained battle group operation, including carrier air, supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in the Indian Ocean.  This was at a distance greater than 200nm from a home base.  I doubt much more useful conversation can be had between us, but in the future if I edit Blue Water Navy or any other pages please do not make bad faith reverts falsely claiming vandalism.79.176.218.166 (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, while yes the Italian Navy operates "blue-water" ships, and will, on occasion, deploy and sustain ship/s out-side their national waters (200nm EEZ), it does not qualify as a blue-water navy. Furthermore there are no citations to support the Italian Navy as blue-water navy. Most naval forces operate blue-water ships and participate in international operations, but they, like Italy, do not qualify. A blue-water navy generally has the capability to project and sustain significant naval power, implying a "self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range". In addition a blue-water navy is one that is recognised to have that ability and maintains numerous standing deployments around the world. Currently only Britain, France and the USA qualify. Russia is perhaps the only other navy in the world that is arguably a blue-water navy.TalkWoe90i 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon - India
Mztourist (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thought I might hear from you! But yeah, I was wrong, India in the end opted for cost. At the end of the day, Typhoon and Rafale were the top choices. Makes sense to go down the route of a significantly cheaper aircraft instead. TalkWoe90i 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks as if India's interests in the carrier capable Rafale had a part to play too.TalkWoe90i 21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course they want a jet that has a carrier capable variant. In relation to cost, I'm sure it wasn't a simple matter of the price tag, but more one of cost:capability. So yet another loss for the Typhoon. How many competitions are there left? The South Koreans will almost certainly choose the F-15SE or F-35 while the Qataris and the UAE will probably opt for the Rafale or F-35. Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, according to what is released, both aircraft met the IAFs requirements. Rafale proved to be significantly cheaper while offering a carrier capable variant too. As we all know, Typhoon is over priced costing more than an F-35. Typhoon costs $30-50 million more than Rafale and up to $5-25 million more than F-35 (depending on variant). A major disadvantage for Typhoon. The fact that Rafale and Typhoon emerged as the only two aircraft to meet the IAF requirements is testimony to their capabilities.
 * Not sure you can say that Rafale and Typhoon were the only aircraft that met their requirements, I'm sure the FA-18E/F (or F-35 if it was offered) would have been more than adequate, but having seen how the US could force the grounding of Pakistan's F-16s the Indian's sensibly chose not to buy American. Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most Rafale will be built by HAL, so I guess all we have to do is sit back and wait for them to start falling out the sky anyway. Will give Rafale an unnecessary bad name tho. Anything HAL touches ends up with technical defects.TalkWoe90i 10:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! Just like the HAL Tejas, rapdily becoming the Hindustan Ambassador of jet fighters, which will come off the production line and should go straight into Museums and onto poles as gateguardsMztourist (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The page chism
What is wrong with the word chism? I have had hundreds of people ask me to put it om wikipedia, so I made a wikipedia page and put it on here and you mark it for speedy deletion. I want to know why. And thank you in advance for the answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockwall123456789 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article Chism was deleted according to (G3) blatant hoax. Notability was also an issue. TalkWoe90i 00:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of ships of the Russian Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Fleet (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) 10:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

British Armed Forces
Please stop introducing information to British Armed Forces that directly contradicts other, sourced articles. At the very least, use the talk page to discuss your changes. Thanks! --91.10.10.224 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding misleading information to British Armed Forces! --91.10.10.224 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You know what? I give up. If you want to have inconsistent articles, and the other non-IPs don't stop you, I won't make a difference anyway. From time to time I try lending a hand here, but types like you always explain what Wikipedia is really about. HAND! --91.10.10.224 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Naval Service (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maritime (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) 11:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What is your problem? Get off wiki. You're doing more harm than good. Stop reverting my edits that fix an article. Find something else to do that you actually can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.161.116 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mixup! TalkWoe90i 01:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Comments
Calling my comment "inane" on "Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)" was minor in thrust, but it still conforms to a personal attack. I'd ask that you refrain from such uncivil activity in the future. I would appreciate it. Neutralis (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

hi
hi 84.255.157.78 (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Goodbye
Have decided to leave Wikipedia and do not intend to return. TalkWoe90i 23:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

...
if you left then i hope you see this message in 2 million years

why did you revert ALL my edits just for telling you "hi"?

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.157.48 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Really!?
Do you really intend to leave Wikipedia?..Why?,What's the reason?...But I see you reverted the edits of "the one who is not so great" in the page Ships of the Indian Navy?...It is just a joke.don't take it seriously..Srikar Kashyap (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday


Though you might not return, wish you a happy Wikibirthday!.Srikar Kashyap (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 TheStrike  Σagle   09:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * again 10:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of Rollback
Please dont use rollback tool to revert non-vandalism edits.  TheStrike  Σagle   10:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You made a 4RR Vio!
I donot wish to template you as you are not a new user.Please refrain from reverting again  TheStrike  Σagle   10:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And then made another edit. I have removed the maintenance tag you added to the article as I don't see a problem with the sources (and neither do the other editors on the talk page). I strongly advise you to review WP:3RR and WP:EW and note that as there has been a request at WP:RPP there will be a number of eyes on both the article and on you. If you wish to dispute the contents of the article you need to discuss it on the talk page and achieve a consensus before editing the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not vandalism
Just to let you know this was not vandalism it was the correct image. Take care, cheers -- D Big X ray  11:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Using wrong summaries
Please read WP:NOT VANDALISM. This and this are not vandalism. Try not to edit war. Use the talk page. You seem to be an experienced editor, and i should not be telling you this. I urge you to take care of such things in future. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Serco Denholm Copyright Violation
Your addition to Serco Denholm has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

JonEastham (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.


 * Royal Marines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to SBS, Gunner and James Hope


 * United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Naval Service

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Hms astute on sea trials.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hms astute on sea trials.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)