User talk:Anir1uph/Archive 1

This 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.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the

Thanks! I am new to editing on Wikipedia, and so I am a bit unsure of what to do most of the times. But I am sure I will learn fast! And yes, thanks for placing the official website under the "External Links" category. I will keep that in mind! Anir1uph (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC) But you also removed a small grammatical error that i had corrected! Hope I can redo that! :P Anir1uph (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, it took me quite some time to learn it all, I hope it will not discourage you. Feel free to leave a message at my talk page if you have any question or need any assistance. Best regards and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Anir1uph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

180.149.49.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ceserp". The reason given for Ceserp's block is: " Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully. Why can't I edit Wikipedia? Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy. Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. What can I do now? You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following: Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must: Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ".

• Blocking administrator: Jimfbleak (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Autoblock lifted. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

hi shukla :) humne yeh page khola toh usmein likha tha leave a msg.

toh hum yeh msg yahan chod ke jaa rahe hai. ok. . . . . . . . message

chod diya.

bye. :)

Amit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.241.177 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You recently undid my edit of the Fifth Generation Jet Fighter page. I would like to stipulate that I do not care and am totally fine with the undo, but in the interest of the truth I must say that almost all of the fifth generation fighter definitions available are based on marketing instead of technical reasons. So, while Sukhoi does consider the Su-35S to be a 4++ generation fighter, it is probably only slightly inferior to the F-22 <http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Su-35S-Flanker-March-2010.pdf> or <http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-170209-1.html>. The F-35 was designed for performance equal to that of the F-16. It has failed to achieve this performance;in the paraphrased words of Air Power Australia, they tried for mediocrity and failed. If the F-35 ever becomes operational (this is doubtful given the cost overruns, multiple serious technical issues, and failure of the basic design) it will be shot down in droves by both the Su-35S and the PAK-FA <http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html>. I would also encourage you to look at the source I used, especially the table at the bottom of the page <http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-081109-1.html>. Once again, I don't care, but I think that Air Power Australia is a much better (or intellectually rigorous) source than anything coming out of the Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Eurofighter, or the Russian Defense Ministry. The article seems to use Lockheed Martin's definition of a fifth-generation fighter (interestingly the F-22 is actually not a fifth generation fighter by this definition, as it has wideband instead of all aspect stealth. But I digress), and the other manufacturers have proposed different definitions, all of which happen to be better for their respective designs. This is not, I think, a coincidence. In the words of another defense analyst who is not associated with Air Power Australia: "1. APA comprises career engineers, pilots and air power planners, and defence scientists, many of whom have invested their working lives in building Australia’s defence capability from the inside; 2. APA has no financial stake in the outcome of any acquisition program within Defence; 3. No one at APA has a career to protect within Defence; 4. APA is linked to a deep and extensive international network of air power experts;..." The same is not true of most Defense Department employees, the aircraft manufacturers, and a good proportion of those with views on the future of airpower in the US. I apologize for the overly long post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.33.80 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to

Fifth-generation jet fighter#Critics and alternate definitions. Whatever ausairpower.net says, it does not supersede the specifications and performance expectations provided by the manufacturers and operators. Please keep in mind that a wikipedia article is not a discussion page, so views and speculations are in general frowned upon. Your comments are welcome. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk

) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. I can now see that by disagreeing with the Lockheed Martin definition I am implying that "fifth generation" is a legitimate way to categorize fighter aircraft instead of a way for aircraft manufacturers to market their aircraft. It would instead be far better to class aircraft as "High capability" (F-22, Su-35S operational) or "Low capability" (all other operational aircraft). The ultimate measure will of course be how well the respective fighter types fair in actual air-to-air combat against each other, but this has not happened since the Vietnam War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.33.80 (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here:

It was really helpful of you to upload File:Sudarshan laser guided bomb.jpg. However, in order to keep and use new images, we need to know their original source.

If you can edit the description page and add this information, that would be great. If you're not sure how or need help, please ask at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sudarshan bomb.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sir, if you would please take the time to visit the [description page of the image] and read the section "Summary", sub-section "Source", I have provied the URL of the image.(Direct link) Please scroll down to the bottom of this web page. You will see that the author V2 has clearly given permission to use the image under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales (CC BY 2.0). Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies; seems you're right, I had overlooked that cc-by tag on the source website. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I also had obtained permission via email from the host web-site, where they have stated that there is no problem using the image on wikipedia.org. I have forwarded the email to [email protected].

Can you help me in finding the appropriate tag for Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK? Where can I find it? I have looked here - Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses but could not find the tag for UK. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, I never noticed we don't have dedicated templates for all the possible combinations. They apparently do have them on Commons (yours would be commons:Template:Cc-by-2.0-uk). I guess it wouldn't be too problematic if you just used the standard {{cc-by-2.0}} template and then maybe added a manual link to the UK version underneath for the sake of correctness. Or you could move the file to Commons right away (that's actually the recommended place to upload files like this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Since there was no template for Cc-by-sa-2.0-uk, I have created the Template:Cc-by-2.0-uk and placed it in Category:Creative Commons copyright templates. How do I move a file to Commons? Anir1uph (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by Nobel laureates until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

how do we revert multiple edits of a vandal in 1 go by twinkle , thanks --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• ok i got it, this feature works in firefox but not in chrome. do you use tw with chrome ??--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 23:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I just selected the option to enable Twinkle from My Preferences. And then use the TW drop down menu at the top of each page. And to revert multiple edits, goto "View history" of the page, select the 2 versions you want to compare, then on the comparison page, you will see 2 more options due to Twinkle. Is that good, or should I give more details? Anir1uph (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I had already read about it and know fully well about reverting and page history (both with and without twinkle) Its just that the 3 options of rollbacking are not coming on wiki on chrome, neverthless i am able to see them on firefox. may be this script isnt fully compatiable with chrome . --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I use chrome, and it works perfectly. maybe those links are not loading due to a slower net connection...I really don't know. Anir1uph (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• somehow its working now, Eventhough i havent changd anything, neverthless, thanks for the response. regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Anir1uph (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For helping create a separate section for emerging BW Navies!...Thanks! Srikar Kashyap (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot man! Anir1uph (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome!.and thanks for re-editing my edit and improving the language.As I already told I'm not so good at authoring articles! Regards Srikar Kashyap (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Anir1uph! You recently reverted, in good faith, one of my edits to Blue Water Navy. Unfortunately I could not read your explanation for this reversion because it was too long for the comment field. Would you please be kind enough to discuss this on the article's talk page, where there is already a section on 'Continuous At-Sea Deterrence (CASC)? Many thanks for your help. Thom2002 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me here! I just did that here! Anir1uph (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Anir1uph....Recently(Today)...a user and an IP have added Korean Navy, Japanese Navy and Russian Navy in the emerging navies section..with of course no references.I have removed the unsourced information and started a discussion in the Talk.Please comment.Thanks! Srikar Kashyap (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Agni V's range is more than 5,000 km. (source1, source2 and source3 & I could give more)

Kanwal Sibal was India's foreign secretary for almost 2 years and his comment adds a new dimension to the domestic reactions. I thought the threshold for inclusion was verifiability and not the truth. (source4)

Hence, I'm wondering what is going on? "DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 12:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the launch of the missile, there has been a flurry of edits, reverts, counter-reverts, propaganda and conflict on the page. I had been explaining and providing reasons for my edits/reverts and making the articles look encyclopedic. Some reasonably good edits might have slipped through my comb though, and i apologize for that. I am trying my best to keep the page clean. Thanks! Also, comments from the country's PM and Def Min are relevant, but in the long run, the comments of India's ex-foreign secretary would not matter. I am sure you'l agree. Notability is also a threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Anir1uph (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, even though the missile can go to 5800 Km, (I myself have updated this to the page today, citing from the DRDO chief's interview on April 1st), the missile has been tested only upto 5000 Km, not more. As such, that must be the range mentioned in the infobox. One cannot add a few thousand kilometers to the range of a missile without any official confirmation/test. Eg, North Korea's claims of making a missile capable of hitting the continental US are just that, claims. The DRDO Chief's claims are also on an equal footing. I hope you get my point. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a lack of discussion and explanation for reverts on

I wasnt trying to bite, but since the launch of the missile, there has been a flurry of edits, reverts, counter-reverts, propaganda and conflict on the page. I had been explaining and providing reasons for my edits/reverts and making the articles look encyclopedic. Some reasonably good edits might have slipped through my comb though. Thanks! I am trying my best to keep the page clean. :D Anir1uph (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern and I am glad that you are trying to keep it clean. but wholesale reverts without reasonable edit summaries are never appreciated. Its not correct to blame you as Mrt was depressed due to other incidents also, but this one added fuel to fire. Anyway i guess this issue is old enough and both of you have moved on. In future we should try to be a little more reasonable in edit summaries. cheers-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to this. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but an old plane can't be a current air superiority fighter:there is no example of war where old planes are using as air superiority fighter.A mirage III (or F1) is just an air-fighter today,no more. --Kl4wY (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Both the planes are used by current air forces as air-superiority aircraft and were designed to be so. Hence they are included. A better solution will be to simple make the title of the section "List of Air superiority fighters". Anir1uph (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Civilized Version!...;)....I laughed a lot... Srikar Kashyap (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hahahah! Thanks a lot! :D

.First Barnstar......that was a great one...and thanks for making it civil.....and accept my FB request...Srikar Kashyap^<<Talk>>06:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup! My first! and fb accepted. Let's hope we can together keep Wikipedia, specially the articles we like, clean n updated! :D Anir1uph (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah......we both are interested in military articles...Srikar Kashyap^<<Talk>>06:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell you that Srikarkashyap is now Strike Eagle!.... ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ ^Ω 15:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

..for correcting my inapt inclusion of image about the range of

Of course you wern't trying to mislead anyone. I meant that the image was misleading. But thanks for the new pics! Maybe you can make a new one, with all the agni series missiles ranges as concentric circles, like the one currently given by ChanakyatheGreat. Anir1uph (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

See if this one (at our right) is workable or not. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 13:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the image is cool but it lacks perfect clarity.However..it is acceptable...nice work... ƊṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ ^Ω 13:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lacks clarity as in? I may be able to improve it. Just suggest some changes to improve it. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

hint: they cant be circles, because for max range they will be launced from the tips of the indian subcontinent like

Arunachal, Leh, Gujarat, Kanyakumari, Andaman Islands. Thats why the old image is not circles. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ

15:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! the missile ranges would follow the rough outline of india. Btw, i did not understand why there are 2 white lines for agni 6. Also, Agni 1, 2 and 3 would also have to be shown, as they are the ones that are going to be operational for the next 3-4 years.. But great job! Anir1uph (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, please do not take range from Andaman n Nicobar. There has been no indication by the armed forces of installing missile silos or mobile ICBMs on those islands. The range must be taken from the mainland India. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No the missile range will not follow the rough outline, it will be a distorted ellipse. And Why not Andaman DRDO has clearly stated that even Agni V can be launched by canister. Besides we have a strong military base at the Andaman, what makes you think India will not deploy its missiles over there ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved to File talk:Agni Missiles Range comparison.jpg

Hi, we share a common interest of mil hist articles, I thought of informing you about a

Thanks! Will do. I recently did correct the article Military history of Pakistan#Kargil War. Anir1uph (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I have rescued a dead link [2] over there, please use it if you know of other articles where the old dead link was used, regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

NOTE SPS Pakdef.info link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_108#Pakdef.info Anir1uph (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Anir1uph. You have new messages at Talk:Sukhoi Su-30MKM.
Message added 06:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Commented.

Something similar..commented on ur comment.. దṨṫƦⓘ₭ϱ𝝨Ƌǥɭϱ ^™ 08:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Anir1uph. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 07:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

hi.....I agree not adding future aircraft in

The standard definition applies. If it is in the air-force, it is active, unless the air-force says it is being kept as reserve. AS you can see in the page

F-35 Lightning II & List of active United States military aircraft, they say three F-35s have been handed over to the military, and are being flown by military pilots, not lockheed test pilots. I hope you see what i mean. Anir1uph (talk

) 10:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

yep......however..it is still mentioned in Marine Corps section.....with 0 active.....instead..how about a new Future Aircraft section.? ƬheⱾtrikeҾagle ^™ 10:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, so i went ahead and removed it from the Marine corps list. A Future aircraft list for where? the indian aircraft list? I think there is already a page for that, Future of the Indian Air Force and similarly for the navy. A separate page for a concise list would be great too. Anir1uph (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Anir1uph. You have new messages at TopGun's talk page.
Message added 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For the record i am clarifying my view that they are Terrorist organisations indeed

 DℬigXray 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

I blocked you momentarily by mistake and have unblocked you. My apologies. I don't see any autoblock, but if one turns up, post {{unblock-auto}} here on your talk page and one of us will take care of it as soon as possible. Again, my apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! :)

I'm glad you caught that... I was about to break bad ;)  -- WikHead (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Me too! Hahaha! Limitations of STiki (and of course my own) :D Anir1uph (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Does STiki not have a whitelist (such as the one used by Huggle)? Users such as myself and Discospinster should surely be on it.  -- WikHead (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It does warn users if we are about to revert edits by someone with more than 50 edits. That is why i checked, cz i thought something was fishy. And even more hilarious was when after 10 minutes of that edit, STiki asked me to judge my own revert on that page marking it AGAIN as potential vandalism. Even STiki users are not on any such white-list! :D So u can't relax, as there can be more STiki users reverting your and mine edits. :D Anir1uph (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, just saw your contributions. You, sir, must definitely be on all Wikipedia white-lists! :) Anir1uph (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment! :) Thanks!  -- WikHead (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Next time you are in STiki related discussions, you really should suggest a whitelist. This article was the subject of two bad STiki reverts back-to-back, and is living proof that the human eye beats automation hands down. I can only assume that STiki is a good powerful tool... yet a major problem if it's promoting the re-introduction of bad edits that have already been correctly addressed.  -- WikHead (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I will do so, and I also also ask a very experienced STiki user, who I collaborate with on other projects. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never taken a look at STiki so I'm not sure what all it entails. However, if the programmers we able to make use of the existing Huggle whitelist, it may prove to be a far more efficient tool. I think it's well worth suggesting.  -- WikHead (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Got an invitation to join here Thanks Anir for Inviting me, however this particular case is a serious lapse on part of the STiki user, why ?

1. The Stiki users who restored the incorrect version failed to see the Entire Diff Screen, before restoring. this is of course a common form of vandalsim where vandals repeat an article multiple times and/or copy paste contents of 1 article to another.
2. There is also a serious lapse on the part editers who restored the correct version by removing the walls of text, Their mistake was primarily on the improper use of edit summary, eg [3] Had they used a more informative summary, then it would have been far more easier to see the flag to be more careful before reverting, (however one has to be careful in reverting irrespective of the edit summary) Even the STiki users can modify the edit summary simply by typing a more useful summary on the comment box before making a revert.
3. Its actually a good thing that stiki sometimes presents reverts by STiki users whom it feels that they have erred. As Anir has said Stiki gives a warning before reverting regular users to be double soure about the revert and template.
   

STiki is by default based on Cluebot queue which is also used by other tools like huggle and Igloo, the best thing about STIki is you are extremely rarely beaten to revert unlike huggle and I make an optimum use of my time. regards--DℬigXray 05:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, how's it going? I'm WikHead. :) To clarify what I mentioned above about the whitelist, is that it seemed odd to me that a STiki user was even alerted to a potential problem following a revert made by User:Discospinster (both an admin and a high-profile vandal fighter)... but then again, looking even closer, it now seems more unusual that the STiki user arrived on the scene nearly an entire day later. Perhaps STiki's automation actually had nothing to do with that user being at this article to begin with. I agree that the reverted summary may have been a bit insufficient, but believe that user should have recognised it as the standard rollback summary and investigated the edit a bit more closely before taking action.  -- WikHead (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you (DBigXray) completely. It was a bad revert. But at first glance, to me and a previous reverter, it just looked like someone had blanked an entire article. The edit seems just like a regular article blanking to both of us. One would have to go through ALL of the (some 200,000) characters to see that it is actually a repeat (which i quickly, though after reverting, did, btw). What me and

WikHead want to suggest is a White-list like huggle. As as you have pointed out, Huggle is quite fast, reducing the time the Huggle user has to properly check an edit before reverting it. But a STiki white-list seems like a good idea. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk

) 07:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes WikHead you guessed it right, STiki diffs are often not very recent with some even going a month old, Actually these are those edits that get get a bad rating on Vandalism Detection algorithm but the BOT is reluctant to revert due to lack of past history of vandalism and prefers to pass it to a human to decide, or those edits that somehow missed the
  WP:RCP and Huggle users. STiki makes no distinction between an admin or a user who has made more than 50 edits in article. I guess the principle behind it is everyone can make mistakes. and admins do make mistakes if they are reverting an article they dont have much knowledge about. Having said that I am not entirely shooting down your suggestions of Whitelist, I believe this had come up in past and you are free to leave a note on Talk page of WP:STiki
  about the possibility of white list.
• @Anir, yeah thats good that you understood the fallacy in your earlier revert. As for the length and difficulty everyone can revert "He is a piece of Shit" in a blink of an eye. In fact my past experience with Huggle shows that User:ClueBot NG does a better(faster) job with such cases and I was often beaten to revert by the bot. But the vandalism such as the one mentioned above is the real reason why Human interference is also needed and why a bot cannot revert this. In my opinion its not efficient to show the same diff to so many of the huggle users, This is one area where STiki optimizes. --DℬigXray 08:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

To Anir1uph - The diff alone can often be a bit deceiving. If STiki allows you a view of the table of contents, this is often a good place to detect duplication at a glance. I'm personally in the habit of paying close attention to section headings while scrolling and reviewing. Seeing multiple reflists, EL, or see also sections, or even multiple clumps of categories is usually a good indication that something's not quite right...

And to DBigXray - Fully understood as I know we're all human and prone to accidental, good faith mistakes. I can recall instances where IP users have tweaked something behind me that I completely and accidentally overlooked, as well as a time when I needed to tweak an article behind Jimmy Wales... and he's the last guy we'd ever suspect of editing abusively. I guess what alarmed me about this, is the idea that an anti vandalism tool was sniffing edits made by users who are known to be consistent good faith contributors. I'm satisfied with the explanation you've provided. :)  -- WikHead (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, the table of contents is not shown in Stiki. but Unlike huggle which shows you one diff at a time, wp:STiki combines all the changes made by the user in a single diff as compared to the previous version. this was a recent feature added to it and helps if someone is adding one copy with every edit to the article , or makes few disruptive edits and a final constructive edit to bluff the huggle user, --DℬigXray 08:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Intercontinental Barnstar
	For participating in the discussion about Agni-V and VI range projection image...:) ƬheⱾtrikeҾagle ™ 11:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahahah! This is a good one! :D thanks!

Could you help me with the final completion date of Project

I am not sure of it myself. Will look into it right now! Anir1uph (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I found the following info use full

• Official ISRO timeline of launch, and satellites to be used. This, i belive, provides excellent latest schedule.
• TOI article on Jan 23 2012, says "Once the system is operational, by late 2013 or early 2014"...
• IBNLive news article on Aug 12, 2010, says "To remove India's dependence on foreign GPS signals, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) plans to launch seven Indian satellites in the next five years." This may be a little outdated, but provides some reference for the expected timeline of launch, before the delays hit in 2010.
• Another news article from Aug 2010, same as previous one. Anir1uph (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page has:

{{ archives
| search      = <yes|no>
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(7d)
| archive             = User talk:Anir1uph/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 70K
| archiveheader       = {{talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 4
}}

I think it should be (I use MiszaBot too):

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(7d)
| archive             = User talk:Anir1uph/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 70K
| archiveheader       = {{talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 4
}}
{{ archives
| search      = <yes|no>
}}

I hope it helps.  Brendon is here 06:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for me. I read about archiving syntax and then also referred to User talk:Muhandes, who is an experienced editor. The ordering is same as he has. Also, the bot runs at a particular time each day...i just installed archiving a few hours back, lets wait for at-least 24 hours. Thanks for your suggestion, i will definitely look into it. Anir1uph (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• the first archive is done after some time, in my case it was done after 3 days. which led me to think that I had not done it properly. I guess the delay is for you to read and decide upon the parameters and choose the best archive methods as per your needs. --DℬigXray 11:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:DBigXray! :D Anir1uph (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I should have checked your talk page history first. You're right and I was perhaps a tad imprudent to presume that you previously didn't know about archiving. The thing is, I have a relatively slow Internet connection and an impatient mind, I saw that you have comments that were last responded to months ago, so you know I thought, I ought to caution you. Never mind. Cheers  Brendon is here 08:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey its not a problem! And, i must thank you, both, for looking out for me! :D Anir1uph (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Anir1uph! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and DℬigXray 06:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Anir1uph (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy. I like it very much whenever I'm relaxed!  Brendon is here 08:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha! Thanks! It is pretty hot in India these days :) Anir1uph (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Anir1uph. You have new messages at Strike Eagle's talk page.
Message added 14:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ϮheჂtriԞeΣagle ^Sorties 14:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

again...15:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for greetings and clarifying Wikipedia link rules. There are several reasons I would like to suggest CGTrader to a list of online 3D marketplaces. Unlike other online shops that take roughly 50% of the price, this online platform is beneficial to artists and enables them to sell and receive royalties directly from customers. It is more a social platform where 3D artists can build their portfolio and sell 3D models. Also, the other shops like (CGSignal and Archi-pedia) mentioned in the article are quite nonessential and amateur compared to this platform. Waiting for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marius Kalytis (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any experience with 3D marketplaces. I saw addition of links that i found more to be like advertisements. Still, if you find the link appropriate, then before adding that particular link, and removing others, please start a discussion on the article's talk page, to notify other editors or build consensus; and mention that in your edit comment. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. What is edit comment? Is that hidden text, which will be visible only in edit mode? Marius Kalytis (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome! Edits comments are the things you must write as your edit summary, briefly describing the changes you have made, so other editors can understand the reason behind your edits. It is available just above the "Save Page" option on the edit page, above the option to add a tick to "This is a minor edit (what's this?) Watch this page". Try to always use it while editing articles on wikipedia. on talk pages/your own user-page, edit comments become optional. Anir1uph (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, why the reverts of the two minor edits? The first was just to add in the noncontroversial fact that vermouth is aromatized in addition to fortified, and the list out the traditional types of botanicals used. In fact as it stands the first setence isn't entirely accurate, because vermouth is not just a fortified wine, like port or sherry. As for the deleted paragraph, I deleted it because it's from a 60- year old article, and to the extent it even makes sense, is no longer true. --Ascf1976 (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Ascf1976! Your edits were reverted because what may seem very obvious to you, may not be obvious to others. Wikipedia has a policy of supporting any edit (except the usual grammar/syntax/layout) with reliable references. That is why I reverted your edits in good faith. Please see your talk page for more info that I have posted there. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work! Cheers, Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply )   00:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! any particular reasons (edits) for this? :D Anir1uph (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you can definitely include it. I would like to work together on this. Anir1uph (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366 likes this. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 08:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Also check that in

Agni V is "more than 5,000 km", this info is less precise than what is available today and dated. Would you mind if I correct that? (You may do it too) Mrt3366 ^(Talk?)

08:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Did that! Anir1uph (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks,

  And please check these three following diffs

  1. diff1
  2. diff2
  3. diff3

Are my changes valid? Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 05:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I did not understand the reason behind your 3rd edit (removing JL-2)...if you could explain it please...Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, i get it, you tried to separate sea based and land based ICBMs. that is fine, but dt must be done for all other countries too. Will help. Anir1uph (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 Exactly. Why don't you help me with that? (I tried in vain to gather info about the SLBMs of other countries like France and UK)

• I see that you wrote, "Cfact not needed, main article wikilink is enough." I think you misunderstood the reason behind my use of {{cfact}}. Neither the touted range nor the purported MIRV capability is corroborated by the original article. Here and here(reliable sources) they contradict both the claims about range and MIRV capacity. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 06:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've been
  bold and corrected the exaggeration about range and MIRV capabilities. Is it okay? I hope it is :). Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 07:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)