User talk:Vedant/Archive 4

May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Anti-satellite weapon, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -MBK004 05:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re BRIC
Hi, sorry about the late reply. I've been away for a while. To address your questions, I am not too familiar about the specific follow-up reports that you refer to but am pretty sure there have been a slew of reports published by GS and others on the BRIC concepts. I do believe that the section needs quite some work to accurately reflect the major reports that have been released. I will see if I can look into it. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re NICs
Next time, please give an Edit summary as a rationale for your edit action. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 22:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with the article nor am I particularly concerned about your edit. The only reason to revert it was because it wasn't justified in any way. Without a hint, I simply cannot guess if your motives for a removal are reasonable enough (so as to further compare the versions), or if your action was just mere vandalism. Salut, -- IANVS (talk | cont) 23:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: He's back
Not really much I can do there, wish I could help though GSMR (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please note that your comments with regard to User:BilCat reminding him about No personal attacks is itself a personal attack on that user. It is not really suitable comment for an article talk page. If you have a problem with User:BilCats comment then you should bring them up first on his talk page or at Wikiquette alerts. Although you have a right to question the behaviour of other users it should not be in the form of personal attack on article talk pages. Please take care with your comments, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your comments and it is not my place to defend anybody involved, BilCat was responding to some name calling by bcs09 and although it was ok to remind them not to continue with such comments. I took the judgement that your first sentence to point out that the discussion was not appropriate was ok but to then make further comments about BilCat and his past history was not helping the situation and that a polite note above and on the talk page was designed to stop any further comments outwith the subject at hand. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blue Water Navy
The trouble is, the only reasonable sourced 'definition' we have is "As there is no clear definition of a blue-water navy, the status is disputed. Usually it is considered to be strongly linked to the maintenance of aircraft carriers capable of operating in the oceans." So any summary of a nations navy must pertain to that definition as they do throughout the entire article. As the terms 'blue-water navy' and 'expeditionary navy' are interchangeable, when you consider the primary means for projection power in an expeditionary manner, it is indeed aircraft carriers that come to mind. We're doing the best we can with a colloquialism whose primary reasoning usually lies in terms of aircraft carriers it seems. Stealth frigates or destroyers don't add to expeditionary capability. This has come up a few times in the past and consensus has always been to keep as is in terms of how it's measured, the number of ships in total makes very little difference. If you do perform a rewrite please make it pertain to the definition and relate primarily to aircraft carriers as that is our only proper measure, if you'd like to place it in the talk page for review I'd be happy to discuss it, thanks. G.R. Allison (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a rewrite I'd be glad to take a look at the proposed replacement. However the concern with giving one nation prominence is that it will lead to nationalist editing by people who disagree. In my own opinion I don't really see any need to give India or any nation prominence, it's just a list of nations with limited expeditionary capabilities. Come up with a replacement and we'll examine it on the articles talk page, thanks. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force
Obviously the orbat source has recently been up-dated. Next time think before you send me another pointless message. Thank you. Recon.Army (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article for list of aircraft of the Indian Air Force uses a Single reliable source. Please do not add any out-side sources so as to keep the list consistent and accurate throughout. As you should know a number of various sources result in "a non-consistent bunch of figures from many sources, which probably use different counting rules." (Administrator User:Buckshot06). Thank you. Recon.Army (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Orbat has recently up-dated, as such I cannot up-date the article as soon as the source is up-dated. It isn’t humanly possible. I am however aware of all the Orbat up-dates and will get round to up-dating the article accordingly unless some one els does so before me. For the last week I have updated the Military budgets article, adding in 153 nations, their military budgets and % of GDP spent on defence, obviously such a large project took up most of my time. Thus I was not able at the same time up date the Indian Air Force article!

You may edit in the Tejas jet your self and any other of the latest Orbat up-dates, I was getting round to updating the article when I have finished another project, but you can go ahead and do it your self if you wish. Thank you. Recon.Army (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

p.s you do understand the concept of using a single reliable source don’t you? Especially for an extensive list if equipment. Also in future do not assume I am blindly using a source without reading it, or that I am choosing what information I use. Like I said I was aware of all Orbat updates but was too busy at the time to make the edits.

Who mentioned national pride? The unregistered user was editing information without a source and at that time Orbat had not yet updated their figures so I was right to revert the edits. My point is to avoid an article where all the information is sourced from 20+ different sources thus rendering the article totally non-consistent rubbish. At least with Orbat the article does have some consistency and some accurate information. (After all most European, American and Asian air force articles source their information from Orbat). I do agree we need a better source, are you Indian? If so do you know if the Indian parliament releases information on defence issues? For the sake of compromise if you feel you need to add other sources like you did for the Su-30s then I will not revert the edits. But try and keep the majority of the article sourced from Orbat until we get a better source. For example the Su-30 is a new aircraft and more are being delivered every month, so yes you can add new up to date Indian news articles to give an updated figure. But for older aircraft where no new aircraft are being delivered and the aircraft figure stays the same we can use the Orbat figure. Remember the Indian Air Force wants the Tejas jet to start being operational by the end of 2010 or early 2011. Thus the Indian air force will now induct its first few Tejas jets for operational evaluation in order to train instructor pilots and evaluate its weapons systems before it organizes the first Tejas squadron. (This is what the RAF did for its Euro-fighter Typhoons). So it is possible that 1 Tejas is in the IAF for operational evaluation. Thank you and have a good day. Recon.Army (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes those edits are fine mate. I am glad you understand my reasoning. You’re a responsible editor and I trust and respect your non-bias. You have no obligation to pass any edits though me mate. Talk to you later. Thanks. Recon.Army (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info mate. I looked over the edit and the source. It's not a drastic change in numbers, however the source used is from 2008 (aprox 2 years old). My only concern then, is that the Mig-29 is quite and old aircraft and since 2008 some early Mig-29 airframes would most likely be retired and scraped due to their old age. Thus Orbat (MilAvia-press) may be the better source as its up-to-date as of 2010 and will reflect some of the older Mig-29s being removed from service. But I will leave the decision up to you, as I am quite busy with other wiki projects at the moment. Thanks again. Recon.Army (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that e-book source mate, it looks pretty good. It will be worth seeing its 2010 updated when it comes out. Talk later. Recon.Army (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Issues with Mughalnz
 Arjun  codename024 06:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

J-11
The source was Kyodo News. Kyodo News only gave Kanwa as the source on the 19 J-11s, not about the omission from the national day parade. I'm going to restore the part about the national day parade and open a discussion on the rest on the article talk page. Cla68 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Please state on the article talk page what you just said on my talk page so others can see what the decision was. Cla68 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

IAF
Dude the point is leading newspapers are a more reliable source then milavia press,so in case a refernce from a leading newspaper can be found its obviously better. Zoravar (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How does it deviate from the accuracy of the article?And the other source you gave is even better,it says IAF still has Su-30MK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoravar (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

HAL Tejas
Hello, The source you provided doesn't even mention which radar is being used. It just said that the Israeli Elbit MMR has been installed on the aircraft. Also, lets not forget that it got the IOC date wrong which leaves me to wonder what other factual inaccuracies it is riddled with. If you wish to edit the article further I suggest you back up your claims accordingly and thoroughly read referenced material before posting it. Vedant (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, if you have any common sense in aviation, you would know that the MMR in question is not AESA. The most recent model flew 2 days ago with EL/M-2032 MMR:, which is not AESA. Moreover, Israel has yet to confirm its sale of EL/M-2052 to India, dismissing talks of AESA mounted Tejas as simple speculation. Furthermore, as a matter of fact, my IOC dates were not wrong. If you bothered reading the sources I provided, you would notice that the dates contradict with yours. I accepted your source solely to comply with common Wikipedia practices in regards to "always quoting the earliest." In addition, your tone in a debate is often provocative, and threatening. Please refrain from labeling every edit on Tejas from those who are not from India as vandalism and falsely accusing others of socketpuppetry or any other Wikipedia offences, when the tide is not in your favor.Ao333 (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The following response was removed by Ao333


 * To be frank, your tone seems just as provocative and combative. If you had infact bothered reading the Aviation Week article, it made NO MENTION of which radar was integrated on the aircraft. It could have been the EL-2032 or EL-2052 and since past sources seemed to indicate that the 2052 was the radar being integrated on the aircraft. In addition, if you'll note, I never accused you of sockpuppetry (Shovon76 was the one who actually added you to the SPI case) but clearly someone is lacking in investigative skills. Please also note that your edits closely mirrored another user's edits (Soupysoap) who was a sockpuppet for By78 who in the past has instated many false claims. Also, I am somewhat suspicious of any user who has a user page like this : 


 *  Love : United States of America, Russian Federation, and People's Republic of China


 * Reasons: Huge economies; Permanent veto members of the security council; Legal nuclear weapon states; Nations with the most advanced indigenous air force, navy and army


 *  Hate : All others except Canada 


 * Reason: I'm Canadian.


 * And for your kind information, I have inserted a lot of "negative" information about India particularly in the inability of its government to meet basic commitments in a vast number of sectors.Vedant (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I take it you're not responding to my claims because you agree with them? I've no issues with that. Oh on a side note, why did you remove this from your user page? I thought it made your user page look classy. Also I think you're missing a note from an administrator reminding you not to edit from multiple accounts. If you'd like, I can re-instate it for you unless you wanted it removed. Vedant (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What claims are you speaking of? No, the admin said I had 2 accounts, but was not editing from both. Why do you so obsessed with me and what I put on my user page?Ao333 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you had to be using two accounts at some point as this page indicates the account was used until an administrator told you it was bad practice to use two accounts. Also, I'm not obsessed with what you put on your user page but I think that certain things that you removed from your user page as well as your comments on defence.pk directly affect your credibility on this site. I do see however that you have removed the offending material from your user page. On a side note, as a friendly grammar tip, it is why are you so obsessed and not why do you so obsessed.
 * Thanks, Vedant (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Know this person?
Any relationship with this person by chance? http://www.defence.pk/forums/members/ao333.html Vedant (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's me. What's your account name?Ao333 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have an account there, I was just inquiring. My primary issue with that forum is that people spend too much time going OT on flame wars and nationalist jabbering and don't take part in much productive discussion. Vedant (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pls have a look
Pls have a look at the article Battle of Lahore. For a good time, the Result of that battle was a "stalemate" and now we have "Pakistani military victory" in its place. I seriously doubt the integrity of that claim. Since i am not really into this topic, and the "potential opposing user" is seemingly an expert in military history; my talking on that topic wouldn't be of big use. I would like you to look at the veracity of the "result". Take special care of the above mentioned editor. Thanks and Regards  Arjun  codename024 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not mean that the said user is a vandal. He contributes with constructive edits; but at times shows up Pakistani POV (which is naturale of him). I could not find sources to read about the "battle of lahore"; some i found were talking about some 16th century skirmish. From what you have looked into; did Indian armed forces declare its intention to capture Lahore city in that battle? or was it just to show Indian deterrence in the context of Op Gibraltar, and to capture some Pakistani territory not necessarily Lahore?. btw good work there.  Arjun  codename024 05:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain tools, including Huggle, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know. Please also be sure to warn the vandals you revert. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Indian Expressways
Hi, I recently reverted your edits on Indian_Expressways with summary "Once a source updates the total expressway figure, you can add it. Until then, leave it at 200km please", wikipedia doesnt solely depends on single source, we can add another source which is updated, Even we dont need to cite any source for same(length) as the article shows its self there are more than 10 expressways already built like Western Expressway 25km, Eastern Expressway 23.55km, National Expressway 1 (India), 95km, Mumbai-Pune Expressway 93km, Delhi-Gurgaon Expressway 25 km n so on.... if u still think this is incorrect, start discussion on talk page. KuwarOnline (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I got ur message on my talk page, first please reply on this page,I have added u in my watchlist so whenever u changes to this section i will see it. If CIA or NHAI is not updating there website with current updates, means these references are outdated. If we say 200 km in article lead section and list all expressways in article with there length more than double the size you(CIA/NHAI) are saying, do u think its correct?? are any Wikipedia policy says that we need add wrong details or the details which contradicts with lead section and rest of article? KuwarOnline (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I again reverted to your edits as it contradicts with own article. If u still think its wrong then we will take up with administrator. KuwarOnline (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that NHAI webpage cited below says 200 km of Expressway though seems old. And i did some googling to find a 400 km length but in vain. We gotta stick to 200.




 *  Arjun  codename024 15:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hei, this is the archived copy of the above web page - as on 2006 July 3 . The Expressway length has never been updated ever since. Does this give any scope to give a clause As of 2006 ...  in the lead for better clarity.  Arjun  codename024 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have left message for admin. KuwarOnline (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vedant, I have seen that put maintenance tag on Indian Expressways article. I would be happy to fix this issue if you let me know what exactly missing/maintenance needed. I want to make Indian Expressways article as clean as possible, so if you let me know or help to fix this issue, I will be more than happy. Thanks KuwarOnline (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Vedant, I m agree with ur proposal but we should add all expressways to table. KuwarOnline (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikify?
Just wanted to seek clarification the tag you added in this edit at Battle of Lahore. It was the only one of your edits that made me go "huh?" because that tag is generally for articles that need more wikilinks or further division of the text into sections, neither of which appears to be an issue in that article. Wondering if you meant to apply a different tag. What article issues did you mean to call attention to? AtticusX (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, thanks for the clarification.  seems like it would be just the ticket for this.  Take a look at the documentation of this box's available tags at Template:Multiple issues.  From what you said, my recommendation would be to go with something like:


 * ...which would show up as...


 * AtticusX (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

With enough rope...
the self-hanging process has begun! - BilCat (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 17:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Stubbing
Hi, You added a stub to San Pietro Clarenza with edit summary "(stub, but there is no classification for location stubs :\)". Three points:

(a) if you're adding stub, it goes at the end (after everything except inter-wiki links), not the top, of the article - per WP:LAYOUT

(b) this article didn't need that tag as it already had Sicily-geo-stub (at the bottom)

(c) as you can see from that, there is indeed a "classification for location stubs", if that's what you mean.

PamD (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In reply... see WikiProject_Stub_sorting/List_of_stubs (it's a vast list, and the structure takes some getting used to, but if you use it a lot you get to remember that beer is "culture" and farming is "commerce", and how the sports sections work, etc). Or just add stub, but in the right place and having first checked that it hasn't already got a specific stub-type! Happy editing. PamD (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag
RE: Burning of Lal Chowk, I've already been through this POV rigmarole with Vivin, who removed the POV tag of his/her own accord in on Dec 28, 2008 (you can check the edit history to corroborate). The article is fully referenced with Human Right Watch reports and a contemporary article from the New York Times. You can't just go around tagging every article that reveals unsavory details about human rights abuses carried out by the Indian Armed Forces. Kabuli (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the tone in the earlier post, however it seems that every few months I have to repeat this exercise with various Indian WP editors with regard to various Kashmir articles/edits. Most of these articles have been tagged, only to later be untagged once the research is determined to be sound.Kabuli (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Cold feet?
This user's contributions are worth watching. He may disappear again in a few hours :) - BilCat (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Restored a page blank
User:GSMR/Aotalkblank for future reference. GSMR (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are biasing the article on Sino-Indian War
You may not like the mention of the People's Daily article, but, hey, truth hurts. Deleting it does not change the fact. It only biases the Wiki article.

This warning on People's Daily is 1). famous, 2). easily verifiable in major libraries including some in the US, e.g. Harvard's, 3). important because the exact same phrase ("勿谓言之不预") is later used in the official warning against Vietnam a few weeks before the 1979 war. One can reasonably expects a similar warning if China has to go to war again, for example, over South China sea.

Duduong (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave the newspapers' name and the date and the page. Is this not enough? What other information must be included?

If you are referring to a formal reference entry, I tried to do it, but every time you reverted it within the two minutes I needed to type. You are obviously watching this page and making (biased) judgment within seconds. Such zealotry can only come from the most biased zealots.

Duduong (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiranandani Estate Powai
Hi Vedant, The article Hiranandani Estate has been nominated for deletion Articles_for_deletion/Hiranandani_Estate, Your views on this article is most welcome please add your comment on Articles_for_deletion/Hiranandani_Estate Articles_for_deletion/Hiranandani_Estate. KuwarOnline (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian Armed Forces
 Arjun  codename024 19:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Burning of Lal Chowk
This is getting ridiculous. The fire was an undisputed act of arson and a military massacre; Lal Chowk did not just "catch fire," it was burned down. I refer you to articles like Burning of Jaffna library, Burning of the Spanish Embassy, Guatemala City, and Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal to see how other WP articles on arson attacks have been named. You did not post any discussion of this name change on the discussion page, and did this completely unilaterally. I hate to say it, but this reeks of a partisan attempt to minimize the Indian army's responsibility for what occurred. Kabuli (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How is turning an arson attack into a "fire" neutral? If anything, it shows an attempt to minimize the fact that this was a criminal act, and pass it off as an act of nature.  You didn't even bother posting anything on the discussion page before making your unilateral decision.  To quote your own earlier comment, I would like to urge you not to presume that I'm oblivious, ignorant or unaware of your POV on the matter, which is becoming increasingly evident with each of your edits.
 * As for Arjun024, I have no choice but to accuse people of partisan editing when they delete fully-referenced statements from articles for absolutely no good reason. With regard to your ludicrous personal attack, I created my account to bring attention to incidents that occurred during the Kashmir conflict that vested interests in India like to deny or minimize (apparently even on WP).  Every statement in my articles is fully referenced with contemporary news articles from local and international media, and third-party sources.  Frankly this is getting ridiculous. Kabuli (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've written very little on Azad Kashmir, so your accusation that I have "omitted" references to human rights abuses there is baseless. Get an article started and I'd be glad to contribute.  Don't even try to pretend that you aren't pushing your own point of view through these edits.
 * As for your Gaza flotilla example, calling it a "raid" still clearly implies the use of force against the ships. By your arbitrary standards of neutrality, the article should be renamed "Arrival of Gaza Flotilla at Ashdod" or perhaps "Diversion of Gaza Flotilla to Ashdod."  After all, anyone who reads the lead will be aware of what happened, and who raided the ships. Kabuli (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have explained why I support the name 1993 Lal Chowk fire at User talk:Kabuli with a couple of examples. Arjun  codename024 09:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)