User talk:Rueben lys/Archive 1

Tiger Legion
I'm not that bothered but you really should have checked before making your article. The tiger legion one has been around for over a year now....--Josquius 18:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

-- Lost (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rival Airbases.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rival Airbases.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

1971 Template
Saw the goodwork on the template for 71 War. I added a few names in the generals/political leaders section. However I have a concern on including the name of war heroes. over time, as we keep adding the war heroes profile the box will become unweildy. we also have to think about putting them in a seperate template/box. differentiate between generals and the heroes. jaiiaf 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the generals who led the important battles, like sagat singh for Operation Cactus-Lilly, or Chandpuri for Battle of Longewala without doubt ought to find a place. But we could possibly have another column for heroes whithin the template, but that'll take time.Rueben lys 13:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with including Chandpuri is he was not a General - but a Major, who led his company from the trenches - If we include him in the list, you will have to start including others - like Major Hoshiar Singh PVC, and a host of other junior officers incl 2LT Ketharpal. the pages for these heroes are already out there. ditto with pannu - it was actually maj gen nagra who was planning that sector - pannu was CO of just one unit - he is a war hero no doubt.
 * It was like this in the East sector. Sagat Singh led one sector - the IV Corps - equally good congributions were made by TN Raina heading II Corps, or ML Thapan. I think it is unfair to write about JS Arora and not mention KP Candth - who was the GOCinC Western Commmand. He had an important role to play as well but we are swept away with news reports. So essentially i think the leaders section should include only officers of Maj Gen and above jaiiaf 14:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to add another section to the template under "Gallantry Awards", although that's gonna take a while 'cause I am a bit busy. Sounds about right???Rueben lys 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

University of Glasgow
Talks are underway with your network administrator. So long as you are logged in, you should be able to edit just fine. Email me if you have any additional questions. Thanks, Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Tenida
Thanks for the edits... :) I am reading the Tenida Shamagra now, once I get done I am going to expand the entire article, but thanks for making the important changes. Take care.--Antorjal 13:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war over Raid on Jaffna University and blocking user rueben_lys
You could work on it in your User space before putting it into article space incomplete. And you still haven't explained what it is. When I first read it, I thought it was something from some fictional universe. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. The context goes into the first sentence.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Raid on Jaffna University was the first of the operations launched by the IPKF aimed at disarming the LTTE by force and securing the town of Jaffna in the opening stages of Operation Pawan.. What is Operation Pawan?  The article doesn't explain.  And Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. .  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Without an explanation as to what Operation Pawan is, there is no context in this article. Is there an article on Operation Pawan?  If so, link to it, don't use bolding.  If not, explain what it is.  Right now, the article still makes no sense to someone who doesn't know what you're talking about.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you remove the context tag again without supplying context, I will block you from editing for a while. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly would you block me from editing? and in that note, how do you block some one from editing, cause I'd like to do that to you as well!!!

Appeal against review by User Netsnipe
<<unblock reviewed|User Zoe has blocked me with the reason (repeatedly removing context tag without supplying context) for the article Raid on Jaffna University while the article was being created (by me) and while I was in the process of adding the very information that she indicates is lacking. She was at this time involved in a heated exchange of message with me, and I believe the reasons are more to gain unfair advantage in this debate. Also request review of integrity of this individual. Also, I was not notified of blocking.|decline=10 hour block has already expired. withdrawn >>

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Zoe for the following reason (see our blocking policy): repeatedly removing context tag without supplying context Your IP address is 130.209.6.40.

Addition on information by Zoe after Block

 * Read something like Munich massacre, where the first sentence explicitly explains what it's talking about, and even gives us dates and places. Your first sentence doesn't tell anything to a reader who has no idea what you're talking about.  Look, the context tag doesn't stay on an article forever, only until such a time as you actually give us some context.  Like I said, when I first read it, I thought it was some fictional universe.  Explain the article, in Wikipedia style, and the tag gets removed.  I'm not trying to edit war with you, I'm trying to explain to you that your article makes no sense.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great, you're blocking me and posting in my user talk page. Are you an admin??? 'cause I'd really like to find out how to report your conduct, which I think is absolutely (.......insert your own words here), and I think you're supposed to let me know how I do that. I don't know wether you're locked in an edit war with me, but your actions sure indicate you are, because any body with a little bit of intellect can make out that
 * a. You have to let somebody finish writing the article before you claim it's incomplete.
 * b. Perception of whether it is in context should depend on the reader, not on me, and you have essentially abused your position.

I still would like to know how I can report your actions, which you did not tell me before you blocked me????Rueben lys 22:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Response by Netsnipe to message on talk page re: appeal against block

 * After reexamining what I had written, I have to admit that I misread the situation after having my judgement clouded from being infuriated with the notion that anyone would threaten to take anyone to the Arbitration Committee over a {&#123;context&#125;} tag. In my opinion, it's still a spiteful move and as Resolving disputes states, should only be used a final resort. I respectfully retract my statement and apologise for any hurt caused. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Singh
Thank you for the information, I added the casualty list to the article, don't know how to split it up into two tables however to make it look better. Just thought it was odd all casualties were Singh's but your explanation makes sense, since I know there is a class system in play. Thanks again and I hope you make an article on the whole operation I will try to contribute what I can if you do. --NuclearZer0 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox
Have you thought of using Sandboxes to create your articles so that they are almost to your satisfaction when they are available on Wikipedia and avaoid the confrontation you just had on a great article. Good job and just my opnion. Also I would like to edit Sri lanka civil war template so that it differentiates military operations versus civilian casualities like the masscares. I am making this comment based on the assumption that you created it ? Thank sRaveenS 23:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture of "RIN" Ships
That picture is a fake. those ships are modern navy and coast guard ships and not from the time of the mutiny. this is clear from the ships design which is fairly modern - and the radar masts of the ones on the right. Adding it back and labeling it RIN is grossly inaccurate. It is not uncommon for newspapers to make stupid mistakes like this. jaiiaf 11:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the comments on the Sannyasi Rebellion and for making a lot of relevant edits. Take care. --Antorjal 17:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Operation Jackpot
Hi. You seem to have good knowledge on the subject. If you have additional information to contribute please do so in the article. Cheers. Freedom skies 18:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for watchlisting
Hello Rueben lys. Please attempt the dispute resolution process before filing a request for investigation or watchlisting into Jvalant. If you have followed the process, please provide links showing this in your next request. Thanks. —[ admin ] Pathoschild 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:FUC
Your violation of WP:FUC in the article on Aishwarya Rai has been reverted. This appears to have been a deliberate violation on your part as you uploaded this image, chose the license, then decided to use the image in blatant violation of the license text and on an article which specifically states right on that line that copyrighted non-free images are inappropriate. Although WP:AGF states that we need to give editors the benefit of the doubt, I see no room here to do so, given the specific issues. Please refrain from any further violations of image licenses and of WP:FUC; Wikipedia takes your violations of copyright and fair-use policies very seriously. --Yamla 15:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Hawker Audax
Hello, I have tagged the image you have used from the bharat-rakshak.com website for deletion. It is copyrighted to a site contributor and is not for wiki. You can however use  or  this image to illustrate an Audax for the article if you wish. It is also appropriate because it shows Sqn Ldr Mehar Singh, one of the first COs of No.3 Squadron. Jaganpvs 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes please replace it with the other image i suggested. There are already a couple of images of audax that can be used and are not exclusive to our site. I would prefer such non-exclusive pictures be used by wiki. Please feel free to email me at jaganpvs AT gmail DOT com for further clarifications. Jaganpvs 14:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Sr-Lanka
Why do want to include LTTE propaganda ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IAF (talk.


 * It is not propaganda at all.There are reputable publications that have documented the claims that have been made in the article.If you wish to provide an opposing view point,please provide a verifiable account that says so. Your post makes it clear that you are editing (deleting) with a POV issue,which makes it count as vandalism. You are welcome to forth your views, but please do not delete those of others, especially when these are verifiable facts. Wikipedia is not the place to settle disputes, no matter how strongly you feel about it. It is a place for facts. Hope you will contribute with your views which will be just as much appreciated.

Rueben lys 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your post makes it clear that you want to add anti-IPKF POV into the IPKF article (no matter how "well" sourced). I can't include jehadi philosophy and the sorrow-laden story of Osama bin Laden into the 9/11 article can I ?

All deletion is not vandalism (no matter how well referenced), especially if it is done to remove off-topic matter and PoV like yours. However, wanton stuffing of unrelated matter like you have done can be counted as vandalism. Indian Air Force (IAF)


 * You are ranting about verifiable facts, credible sources etc. but do you know that any fact/statement must be relevant to the article at hand ? So what do Sri-Lankan massacres of Tamils have to do with IPKF ? Its like adding Babri-Masjid issue and 1992 riots, 1993 bomb-blasts in the in the Gujarat riots page. This clearly shows you are adding a PoV because it is completely unrelated to the topic.....And it must go, verifiable or not verifiable. Deleting it would be an Article Clean-up not vandalism. Adding it needlessly (which is what you are doing)is vandalism.

Also, you are portraying LTTE sponsored stuff as "verifiable sources", which it clearly is not. The language must change. Indian Air Force (IAF)


 * Kindly make an effort to see my edits in the article. I have removed the Sri-Lankan massacres section, which you insisted on adding (like a vandal) even though it is nowhere relevant to the topic. Besides, my edits to IPKF have made changes to pertain to a neutral statement lke, "LTTE alleges that IPKF massacred so and so...." instead of the blatant nonsense earlier like, "IPKF massacred so and so many people..." If I had my way, I would delete all the stuff on alleged IPKF massacres because it is entirely LTTE PoV and not, "Well-referenced sources" as you falsely trumpet as. Since when did LTTE propaganda become "well-referenced" ? Indian Air Force(IAF)


 * First of all, have a look in the page and notice that I have not made any contributions to the article. Second, stop ranting like an idiot.Rueben lys 15:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I had also deleted all references to so-called IPKF "massacres" which was reverted by you again and supported by jaiiaf by adding the word "Alleged" to the title. I then made the section neutral by conveying the idea that LTTE alleges and accuses the IPKF of those massacres, however, I still feel that that section is simply not needed because it is LTTE propaganda...a terrorist propaganda. Indian Air Force(IAF)
 * If you are literate (forget being educated), go to the history page of IPKF and see the edit made on 13:39, Nov 30. You had reverted an edit of mine, by bringing back the campaign box on Sri-Lankan atrocities on Tamils. This is vandalism because its totally unrelated to the topic.

Jaffna University Helidrop
Hello Rueben lys, This what i want to say. The web sites such as Tamilnet, Tamilnation, Tamiltigers and Asia tribune, are very harder to select as reliable sources because they are almost pro LTTE. If you have any further questions about this matter, please feel free to ask from me. Happy editing!!! ♪ ♫ Ľ ą Ħ ĩ Ř ǔ _ Қ ♫ ♪ (Ŧ) 20:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
Hi, no worries. But, I am afraid I don't really know much beyond what's in the references, especially the Bharat-rakshak article, which was in the reference section. I think that's the most comprehensive article I have read in recent times. One of my student's pointed the wikipedia article out, looked like it had potential. Anyways, lemme know if you need anything I could help with.Dudewheresmywallet 18:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Laddie Roy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Laddie Roy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle plan
Pakistan's battle plan was based on the assumption that an attack in the area would help Pakistan’s 1st Armoured Divisions task in Ganganagar area. Pakistan High command also felt that it was important to protect the North-South road link which they felt was vulnerable as it was close to the border. A Combined Operations Plan was decided upon. This involved two Infantry Brigades and two Armoured Regiments. A separate division, the 18 Division, was formed for this purpose. 18 Division Operation Orders required one Infantry Brigade (206) with an Armoured Regiment (38 Cavalry) to capture and establish a firm base at Longanewala, a junction on the Indian road system and another Infantry Brigade (51) with an Armoured Regiment (22 Cavalry) to operate beyond Longanewala to capture Jaisalmer.

The Pakistani plan was lauded in the words of Brigadier Tariq Mir as "Insha Allah (God willing) we will have breakfast at Longewala, lunch at Ramgarh and dinner at Jaisalmer". The ambition was far-fetched from the start. And as the day unfolded, Longewala would stand out as one of the biggest routs in a battle for Pakistan despite overwhelming superiority before commencement of the battle.]

On the Indian side, the Longewala post was held by the A company of the 23rd Punjab Regiment,led by MajorK S Chandpuri. The rest of the battalion was located at Sadhewala, 17 km north-east of the Longewala post. Chandpuri had under him a section each of MMGs and 80mm Mortars, and one Jeep-mounted RCL. His two recoilless gun detachments were under training at the battalion headquarters. Major Chandpuri also had under his command a four-personnel detachment of the BSF camel division. . However, the Longewala post had no armour and artillery support. The defences were sited on a high sand dune. Immediately after PAF strikes on Indian airfields on December 3, Chandpuri dispatched a 20 man strong patrol under Lieutenant Dharam Vir to Boundary Pillar (BP) 638, erected right on the international border. This patrol was to play an important part in detecting the Pakistani forces.

On the night of 4 December, the patrol under Lieutenant Vir reported haning detected noises from across the border suggesting a major armour movement. However, this was totally unexpected and did not corroborate with the intelligence inputs recieved by the command, and was not accorded as being of critical importance. A shortwhile later however, the patrol reported a very large number of tanks and infantry vehicles crossing the border, heading for Longewala post. At this time, Pakistani artillery positions accross the international borderopened up, bringing the Longewala post under indirect fire. However, the shelling did not inflict any casualty or damage to the Longewala post, only killing five BSF camels.

Major Chandpuri had by this time heard the advancing Pakistani tanks, and instructed Lt. Vir'spatrol to shadow the column, while he sent an urgent message to his battalion headquarters for reinforcements, armour and artillery support.

The actual battle
The battle began on 5th December at 2:30 AM when Pakistan Army made the daring attempt to cross the desert heading for Longewala, 16 km from the border. When Major Kuldip Singh Chandpuri contacted his seniors he was told that though it was important to contain the attack as much as possible, he could move the 23rd Battalion of Punjab Regiment to Ramgarh as a strategic retreat. However he decided to stay put. As the column of 60 tanks approached the Indian post, the Indian troops without support of heavy artillery or minefield defences knocked out two tanks with their jeep mounted recoilless guns. Though jolted, the Pakistani advance managed to surround the post two hours later trying to soften up the Indian defenders before attacking. Although massively outnumbered and surrounded, the Indians never gave up, which confused the invading troops. Dawn arrived, and the Pakistan forces had still not taken the post.

The Indian Air Force Hawker Hunter aircraft were not outfitted with night vision equipment, and thus were delayed from deployment until dawn rose. With daylight however, the IAF was able to operate effectively. Without support from the Pakistan Air Force which was busy elsewhere, the tanks and other armoured vehicles were easy targets for the IAF's Hunters. The range of the anti-aircraft guns mounted on the tanks was limited and thus were ineffective against the Indian jets. By noon the next day, the assault had cost Pakistan dearly as more than 40 tanks and a total of 100 vehicles lay shattered on the desert. The Pakistani attack was first dented, then forced to withdraw when Indian troops launched their counter-offensive; Longewala had proved to be one of the defining moments in the war.

Aftermath
Notwithstanding the Indian victory, there were intelligence and strategic failures on both sides. India's intelligence failed to forecast such a huge invading tank column in the western sector. Moreover the defending post was not heavily armed to neutralise the enemy. Finally, they didn't push home the advantage by finishing more tanks when the IAF had the Pakistan tanks on the run. They did, however destroy nearly 50 tanks, remaining one of the largest disproportionate tank casualties for one side in a single battle after WWII.

Invading Pakistan troops meanwhile, had over-estimated the Longewala post due to the stiff resistance encountered there. Attacking with virtually no air cover, they waited too long to deliver the lethal blow, and failed to anticipate an Indian counter-attack from the skies. Given that Pakistan's T-59/Type 59 Chinese and Sherman tanks were slow on the sandy Thar desert, some military analysts have opined that the attack may have been an overly aggressive move on the terrain. Some Pakistan tanks had suffered engine failures due to the harsh conditions and were abandoned. The open desert battleground provided little to no cover for the tanks and infantry in case of an aerial assault. Some Pakistani writers have viewed the plan to capture Longewala to be brilliant in conception, but was let down by poor execution.

For his part, the Indian company commander Major (later Brigadier) Kuldip Singh Chandpuri was decorated with India's second highest gallantry award, the Maha Vir Chakra. Several other awards were earned by members of the defending battalion. On the other hand, the Pakistani Divisional and Brigade Commanders, assigned to capture Longewala, were both sacked.

Jonty Rhodes
Dear Ruben, I haven't seen much evidence of your trying, but [personaal attack removed]. Paul venter 14:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Image
It's in the commons, so I assume that you won't in fact be able to delete it; deletion has to be requested there. If you do have admin rights there, then I assume that a direct request by the up-loader is grounds for speedy deletion (it is for images here). I agree that this whole mess leaves Paul venter looking pretty bad, whichever interpretation one puts on it. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bombay Mutiny
Responding to your query, no I don't think it is frivolous. It is called a mutiny and not a rebellion because it was a mutiny and not a rebellion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shreyam (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Pretty succint I must say, but pardon me for saying this, but you seemed pretty rude. And your argument doesn't make any sense to me. Sorry, I'm reverting.Rueben lys 21:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shreyam"
 * Excuse me, you're the one who accused me of being frivolous. And before you revert again, please go and read up "Rebellion" and "Mutiny". You may notice (I am not sure you will) that
 * "Mutiny is the act of conspiring to disobey an order that a group of similarly-situated individuals (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) is legally obliged to obey. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s), turning the strongest arm of the law into a danger for the legal order." while


 * "A rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviours from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements."


 * Now, if you've understood what the two are saying, which one do you think applies to Bombay Mutiny seeing that it was against orders from Superior officers and not the govt, albeit it can be said to turned into a generalised resistance, but never reached the proportion of a rebellion, or revolt, which would be much larger in magnitude and reach. Please read before you attempt to revert again.Shreyam 22:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, you're right as to why I was pissed off, and yes I do admit I was rude, but as you have admitted, your edit and message seemed to be quite rude to me. I think we'll close this chapter for now. No hard feelings.You're welcome to verify the differences between a rebellion and a mutiny in the mean time. Shreyam 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your message
I had a look, and I've put his user/Talk pages on my watchlist. Let me know if you do have more trouble, and I'll see what I can do. I expect that you're right, and that he's not going to stop, but we have to give him a chance... --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:No1sqd.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:No1sqd.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism
Hi

The user you warned for vandalizing the Subhash Bose page has been vandalizing the First War of Indian Independence page. I've added a comment on his page - but can his IP addy be blocked for a few days to straighten him out? Jvalant 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian National Army
Fay is indeed the standard text. I'll be honest and say I don't like that book: I think his justifications for collaboration with the Japanese are weaselly, and that he grossly exaggerates the role of the INA in securing Indian independence in order to make his subject seem more important. However he's done a lot of research, and the book is widely cited. You could also look at Bayly and Harpers' recent Forgotten Armies, which isn't specifically about the INA but helps to put its campaigns into perspective within the wider context of the War in Southeast Asia. I'll see if I can think of anything else and get back to you.

Sikandarji 08:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmm - well you'll find that most reputable academic publications have the Japanese as the bad guys in WWII (would you have wanted them to win)? I'm not terribly neutral about this as I had two great uncles who worked as slave-labourers on the Burma-Siam Railway, as did thousands of Malays and Indians, normally in much worse conditions than allied Prisoners of War. I'll see what else I can dig out though....the Cambridge History of Southeast Asia might be useful as well. Sikandarji 12:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian Independence League
Hi Rueben lys. You are off to such a great start on the article Indian Independence League that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian National Army
Hi, The reason I deleted the "Allegations of INA brutality" section of INA was that it was empty at the moment. It looked like someone was trying to expand it but had forgotten it mid way, hence I removed it. I was not expressing my POV on this topic per se. As I see now you have put in a lot of effort to improve upon the whole article and I really appreciate it.

Sandyiit 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

About NSIT
Iam calm. The reason why iam deleting is because there is no reason for to keep it. There is nothing to discuss about it. How come i see recruitment only in indian colleges why not in US,UK and other countries and yes iam talking about the articles in wikipedia. Please the article can be improved in many ways such has adding about computer labs, college campus and many more. They are many examples that can be seen in wikipedia. Instead of starting a small fight and making it big for removing campus recruitment. Atlast recruitment is a advertisement. --SkyWalker 07:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can check this page . He is the admin in wikipedia. --SkyWalker 18:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk Pages
From Wikipedia vandalism, Read the last line :)

Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion.

Talk Pages
I see no Wikipedia policy saying users who don't register don't have the right to edit their own talk page, please tell me if there is, otherwise i prefer to keep my talk page blank.

However i do see IPs blanking their talk pages, and admins having no problems with it. In the end a non-username user is also an editor and enjoys similar rights, isntit?

But i think i need to clarify, the poor english i was talking about was not in the edits, but the exact one phrase which made 0 sense posted in discussion page.

"your message seemed to imply that his edits were not welcome or useful because of his lack of skills in the English Language" Well then i am sorry, but your interpretation is incorrect.

But i do believe good English skills are necessary to being a good editor. --202.91.67.14 11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

INA stub
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?  01:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have created the page for Category:Indian National Army stubs, but it doesn't seem to have the required 60 or more stubs. Can you, please, add the template to some more stubs? User:Jreferee may have a few good ideas for expanding the number of stubs included. The best way to keep a stub category (and the template) out of deletion is to make it very useful. But, whatever you do, it has to be done pretty quickly. Otherwise it looks like a template destined to get deleted. Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Azad Hind Fauji.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Azad Hind Fauji.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please modify your citation
You have added a number of refernces on the India page but many of them have an incorrect style of referencing. Please correct them. Also adding too many citations to a single sentence is not advisable hence reduce the number of citations (eg 6 citataions to one line can be made three) Knowledge Hegemony  07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1915 Ghadar Conspiracy

 * In the Spirit of Ghadar. The Tribune, Chandigarh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rueben lys (talk • contribs).

UC -Berkeley
Just an FYI....When you added [Category:Ghadar Party] to UC Berkeley, you didn't put brackets around it, so it looked like plain text and I assumed it was just misplaced nonsense when I removed it. cOrneLlrOckEy 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indian National Army
Hi. Re your message regarding the inclusion of the template on the Punjab Regiment page. I think the template is totally out of place; whilst the article is referenced in the template, there is no mention of the INA anywhere in the Punjab Regiment text to give any reason why the template is there or why the article is in the template. Even if there was some explanation, it would be a very minor portion of the Regiment's story making the inclusion of the template somewhat obscure. More appropriate in my view would be text in the Punjab Regiment article explaining its contribution to the Hindustan Field Force and including a link to the HFF article (which, of course, should certainly have the template in it). I'm not taking it out however until I hear your reaction to this. Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Reuben. It still doesn't work. There has to be something in the main Punjab Regiment article about the INA and the HFF. You can't have explanations in the talk page - it is there for discussions only. The main page must stand on its own to the casual reader. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

India RFC
Rueben, Could you consolidate your comments in the India RFC into one section ? If you need to break up your responses to different editors' comments, you can use bold headings, such as :
 * Response to Abecedare's comment

within that section. Thanks. Abecedare 23:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way I don't think there is any limit on how much, or when one can comment in an RFC, since the aim is to invite opinion and generate discussion that can lead to a concensus. Of course, more concise and to-the-point comments are more likely to be read :-) Cheers. Abecedare 23:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Imphal and the Manipur campaign
Firstly, thank you for your comments. Secondly, with regard to the planning and Kawabe's role in it, the most detailed source I can find (other than rare translations of Japanese articles) is Louis Allen's Burma: The Longest War (1941 - 1945), Dent Paperbacks, ISBN 0-460-02474-4, Chapter 3, The Box, pp. 157 - 170. Because a detailed blow-by-blow account of the planning process would be long and involve a multitude of Japanese names and staff appointment titles which would be meaningful only to a military expert, I have left it to stand at Mutaguchi initially pushing for the attack, and "staff at Burma Area Army" having serious misgivings.

Kawabe seems to have had little influence on the process at any stage. The initial protagonists were Mutaguchi and his Chief of Staff, Major General Momoyo Kunomura, against Kawabe's Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Eitaro Naka and one of his planners, Colonel Tadashi Katakura. Naka and Katakura initially had the plan quashed, but another of Burma Area Army's planners, Hideaki Kinoshita allowed it to proceed (on the grounds noted in the article; that attack was better than defence, and if the Japanese were going to attack at all, they might as well make it a decisive attack). Kawabe seems to have believed at this stage that Mutaguchi might as well be given his head, but that he (Kawabe) could call the operation off at any stage.

The plan was submitted at this point to Southern Area Army in Singapore, where the Chief of Staff (Lieutenant General Inada) also expressed reservations but did not have the authority or force of character to prevent the operation taking place. His objections flippant or irrelevant (in Allen's opinion). It was at this point that Imperial Army Headquarters in Tokyo (in particular War Minister Hideki Tojo) had Inada removed from his post as a result of an argument the previous year over the political and economic future of Japanese-occupied South East Asia, particularly Thailand.

The plan was finally put to Tojo, who apparently shouted questions through his bathroom door at the Staff Officer who outlined the plan), and on receiving shouted assurances in reply, in effect said, "Get on with the operation". Field Marshal Hisaichi Terauchi, the Commander in Chief at Southern Area Army, echoed this instruction. So, Kawabe found himself under orders to proceed, with little opportunity to influence events.

According to Allen, Bose was involved in the planning process in late 1943, when Tojo (who had some advance knowledge of Mutaguchi's ideas) leaked them to Bose. Terauchi and some officers intended to use the INA only for reconnaisance or sabotage (or perhaps even as porters and labourers, according to Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper, Forgotten Armies, Penguin, ISBN 0-14-029331-0). Bose successfully insisted on a combat role for his forces.

I think all the above will suffice to explain why the Japanese planning process might perhaps be best left as a brief summary.

Again according to Allen, Kawabe wanted to call off the operation in early June on his own authority, but in mid-June he signalled that it should continue, and confided to his diary that Bose was the key to the future of India and Japan. It is not explained what led to this conclusion, although Allen noted that Kawabe was very ill and almost prostrate by this time, perhaps as a result of bearing the responsibility for what seemed like imminent and inevitable failure.

I'm glad you agreed with the moves and amendments I made to the Imphal and Ngakyedauk articles with regard to relevance. I will probably have to make some more adjustments. Some of the paragraphs regarding the INA have been inserted where they rather break up the continuity and narrative flow. HLGallon 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

India Page
You have mentioned that you wrote something on my talk page when you undid my edit and put back the "Controversial" Tag back. But it seems that you forgot to do that. Its really not a Controversial Topic, is it? It is more of a difference in judgment of degree of importance issue, whether Bose is mentioned on the India page or not. So why make it sound like there is big controversy regarding how India achieved independence. It really doesn't befit a featured article to have an ugly, misleading tag.--Keynes.john.maynard 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Keyenes, you might've noticed that I had also said it was factually incorrect, please have a look at the contents and content summaries I have extracted from Fowler's authors and see whether it is factually correct.Rueben lys 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rueben, its Keynes, not Keyenes (and just like bananana where the number of na's matter, the e's matter here. ;-). On a more serious note, I'll have a look at Dwaipayan's version. --Keynes.john.maynard 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Since quite some time, I have been contributing off and on mostly profiles of freedom fighters. Concerned primarily with sound, reliable and, often, little known, data, I have no time, unfortunately, to look after the form. I shall appreciate a careful look at these articles (cf: my site) from your batch of young searchers, as you have recently done to touch up Bagha Jatin. Or even more. Lots of thanks.--BobClive 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My Professor
I started my PhD thesis (Doctorat d'Etat) in 1974, under the guidance of the internationally famous philosopher and historian, Raymond Aron (class-mate of Jean-Paul Sartre). Never met Marcovits, who seems to have been a student of Miss Charlotte Vaudeville, a Christian Missionary turned into Indologist. All the best.--BobClive 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive the RfC etc on Talk:India?
Hi Rueben lys, since we seem to have come to some short-term understanding on the Talk:India page, will you mind if I archive the discussions (they are getting to be big)? Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with British Empire
Hello Reuben, I need your help on the British Empire article. The article contains no balancing criticism and my attempts to add some have been repeatedly undone by Wiki-Ed and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. Since I am relative newcomer to wikipedia any help will be greatly appreciated. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)