This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey there Recon.Army, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Recon.Army. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 00:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Recon.Army, thanks for your note. I don't think this qualifies under the speedy deletion criteria, and I would recommend you take it to WP:AFD. It's a pretty vast and highly-referenced article, parts or all of which may be of use to others. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've remove the prod you re added to this page, since the deleiton is contested. I also had to undo your AfD nomination, since it wasn't formatted correctly. If you want me to nominate the page for AfD I will do so for you. Otherwise, please make sure you understand how to nominate the article before doing so. Kingpin 13 ( talk) 13:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Recon Army, There's nothing to protect at the moment. Instead they're a non-consistent bunch of figures from many sources, which probably use different counting rules. Eg. Do you count aircraft which have just been accepted into air force service, but not in a combat unit? aircraft in store, updated numbers from casualties etc? This means that the article is near useless as an exact source, and can only give general figures. Feel free to come back to me when one Wikipedia:reliable source (IISS maybe) has been adapted as the standard and is used throughout. Sorry if this is a disappointing answer, but the figures need lots of work. Regard Buckshot06 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
1,733 killed(US:1047, UK: 281, Others: 405) [1]
9,967+ wounded(US: 5,629 [2], UK: 3,608 [3], Canada : +400 [4], Germany: 166, Australia: 120 [5], Romania: 44 [6])
Please update war in Afghanistan(2001-present) article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
Hi, regarding your proposals to merge Military of the EuropeanHUnion and Military of the European Union, I remain neutral to them, and have therefore not listed either support or oppose - it's not my subject area. However, if you feel strongly about it, since the proposals have hardly attracted any comment, there is nothing to stop you being WP:BOLD and doing it - the bullets, if any, will start flying later ;) -- Kudpung ( talk) 08:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have given accurate latest sources, as India has sent Mirage-2000 and MIG-29s for Upgrade, no source will give inaccurate fleet number which will increase per unit upgrade cost, its simple Logic. I don't understand how you can call all the sources I have given as- Vandalism when you yourself have relied on some vintage "not up to date source". Please Provide a latest Source to refute my claims, Till them I will consider ur reverts as pure vandalism and remove whenever you change. Thanks !!!!!! Truth Prevails 17:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The source you are providing is not updated and incorrect! I am giving latest figures. If the source Provided by you never gets updated, it cannot be taken as "Word of God". Your threats are considered as Vandalism and this intolerance towards facts confirmed by various sources is more than Vandalism! It should be noted this is an open source not your playing field for vandalism! Truth Prevails 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think they look great and have no objection to them being added to the article. -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There will eventually be a need for a separate article but at the minute this is covered by the Future Surface Combatant (where you seem to have got the information anyway). Also please review Wikipedia policies about not asserting your point of view ( WP:NPOV). The section
"Build these and don't cut them in terms of number of ships or capabilities, its time to save the Royal Navy and give them what they need to protect our country. Act on your claim that "Defence is the first priority" of government. Don't be the government that did what none of our enemy's have ever been able to do, destroy the Royal Navy"
is wholly inappropriate. Kind regards Mark83 ( talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Any particular reason why you eliminated all images ? Also, the MEKO 140 class, which served in desert storm/desert shield, they are actually (light) frigates by Blohm & Voss but ARA traditionally do not called frigates their warships -- Jor70 ( talk) 01:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Template:French Navy active ship list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TexasAndroid ( talk) 03:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I am in no way condoning the unsourced introduction of facts but the IAF does indeed have two Phalcon platforms in service as per this article. As such, I'm changing the article now but I wanted to let you know just incase.
Thanks, Vedant ( talk) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I've moved Template:Astute class weponry to Template:Astute class weaponry. I think we had a similar spelling hiccup yesterday on another template. It's worth checking your spelling when you're creating new pages. David Biddulph ( talk) 10:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello RA. Can you hold off on further changes to displacement figures for the Nimitz class? The figures on the navy.mil webiste differ from other official sources, and are almost certainly wrong. There is more discussion at User_talk:Gene_Nygaard#Displacement; we should open at new section at the Nimitz class article to centralize discussion. Thanks. Kablammo ( talk) 16:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, Just wanted to let you know that another user has modified the numbers for combat aircraft in the IAF. I left a message on his talk page suggesting that he not change too many of the aircraft service numbers so that the majority of the numbers come from the MilAviaPress article and not from an assortment of various sources which would return the article to its previous state. Vedant ( talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I had opened a [5] to discuss the matter. So if you have sources to provide, lets discuss it and then remove the ships. But until now, there is no information on the ships getting decommissioned. Bcs09 ( talk) 02:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi I reverted your edit because I thought it might be adding too much detail to a basic table outlining states with nuclear weapons and estimated stockpile numbers. However, I am not fundamentally opposed to the new details. I am of course aware of the difference between strategic and non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons. We had previously listed operational/total warheads and the other columns in table would provide further clarification. I though would appreciate if you could start a discussion in the talk page and obtain consensus because making a major change to the table that has been there for months. Nirvana888 ( talk) 02:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Great power are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Vedant ( talk) 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Indian Armed Forces. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vedant ( talk) 13:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that user:Vedant is an Indian nationalist and anti-British editor. The majority of his edits are either pro-Indian or anti-British. Vedant appears intent on promoting the notion that India is a great power, even a superpower. 88.106.127.218 ( talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I have replied to your query. Jolly Ω Janner 11:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I see your changes, and that was be very inconsistent data from warfare.ru . I try to complete these data to all commisioned ships in russian navy now. Ships in repairs or reserve is still comissioned!!! Please dont change my repairs and fixes to these uncomleted data from warfare.ru. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornet24 ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yea, but that page is list of ships - not list of active ships! See list of navy of other states - for example USA. If you like have list of russin active fleet - build that page. thx —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hornet24 (
talk •
contribs)
12:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
warfare.ru have INCOSISTENT DATA... For example: Russian Strategic Naval forces listed 64 active R-29R missiles for 4! Project 667BDR submarines - not 3 that is listed in warfare.ru... Decommissionig of some older R-29R missiles is reason, why K-506 Zelenograd is now prepared for nearby decommissioning. And that page is really "list of ships of the Russian Navy" NOT "list of the ACTIVE ships of the Russian Navy". For example: K-407 Novomoskovsk is not rusty shit (as you say at my page), but it is in overhaul and rearmament process, and will be planned in service for next 10 years! You cant delete this ships from that page - reason: Russian Navy HAVE that ships is their inventory! (Same is aircraft carriers and other ships in US Navy - if they are in reserve/overhaul - they are still ships of US Navy)
Hi, a few months ago you removed essentially all the auxiliary ships from the article, which you replaced with a "Not yet finished". Is there any particular reason that, months later, the article is still missing its ships ? Also, as you seem to be one of the editors battling over the number of "commissioned" ships, may I ask where you get your information that such or such ship is commissioned ? The Marine Nationale does not seem to make a distinction between "commissioned" and "non commissioned" ships to me. Equendil Talk 12:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sloop is a Royal Navy term, the French nowdays use Aviso.
Well actually "Sloop" is pretty much as close you can get to a literal translation of "Aviso". Hence as this is an En language article I stated "Aviso", as it is the formal French name (or category) that described this class, and then stated "Sloop" to define the literal meaning of Aviso. As it is sort of reasonable to describe a Sloop as a light Frigate then that is OK but then we have lost the opportunity to describe the vessels as the French Marine have, That is as a "Sloop" (an Aviso). This is why I edited the section to re-introduce the French term "Aviso", following in the tracks of the work of [Equendil] in getting the article back on track again, but I was only defining what an Aviso is rather than calling the ships "Sloops" By the way 'Corvette' is derived from the French as it is a French word in origin. I am a great believer in seeing a French ship described as a French ship, not by comparison or by direct naming conventions of another nations navy. I may be wrong on this but I thought the modern convention of a Sloop (an Aviso) was some somewhere between a Corvette and a Frigate. I also get a bit upset when En WP editors re-invent the world from an anglophile point of view. It was not WP but I have seen a photo of the ship Laperouse captioned as La Perouse by an Englishman even when you could see the correct name on the ship itself in the photo. I recently changed the name of the article on François de Galaup, comte de La Perouse to François de Galaup, comte de Lapérouse as the same sort of thing was going on there. "Aviso class. A sloop, (or light frigate) tasked for coastal anti-submarine warfare, patrol and defence including strategic submarine support and off-shore deployments" and ""(→Small Surveillance Frigates (Corvettes): should be light frigate)" It is the French Marine that call them a "Frégates de surveillance". Have a look at the discussion page, Some time back I copied the list off the Marine website. Great to see somone is interested, cheers. Felix505 ( talk) 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this submarine is now commissioned only in Russian Navy. By the end of the year she will be leased to India Navy, but it will be still ship which is property of Vojenno-morskego flota Russijkej Federacie. What i mean - for that 10 years of contract she will be still commissioned ship, but will be on inactive status, but for this moment is a active ship of Russian Fleet-- Hornet24 ( talk) 11:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Recon.Army, we could use your help over at the Blue water navy talk page. The situation appears to be esclating and I feel the opinion of an experienced editor would be valuable.
The situation is this; the user Bcs09 objects to this edit,
(Original text) "The United Kingdom has recently retired the Harrier jets that fly from the nations aircraft carriers, leaving the Royal Navy without a carrier strike capability."
(New text) "The United Kingdom has recently retired the Harrier jets that fly from the nations aircraft carriers, temporarily leaving the Royal Navy without a carrier strike capability".
I have included temporarily to signify that the abandoning of carrier strike is not a permanent strategy for the Royal Navy and that they intend to re-generate that capability in the coming decade. I believe this information to be important.
Any input or opinion you can offer to the discussion linked to (also to the status of the RN as a BW navy) will be immensely valuable, thanks for your time. G.R. Allison ( talk) 12:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)