23:40

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS Iron Duke salutes her affiliates in Jersey MoD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. January (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Potential superpowers/GA1‎, Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have replied there. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's going to pass at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Type 997 Artisan 3D, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you modified the United Kingdoms reserve forces figures here List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel. The source you have included is two years prior to another source listed and provides figures from 2007, as no data is available from 2008 - 2012 in that document for total numbers of reserve forces (including those held at low readiness for a time of need). The 2014 report includes these figures and is accurate. The note that you added says there are two categories of reserves: Fixed Term Contract; and liable to recall. There are probably closer to three types, refered to in the 2014 document as: Volunteer Reserves (those who are on a three year roling contract and attend Army Reserve/RNR/RAF Reserve units for a set period of days each year); Regular Reserves (Those who have left the Regular Forces and remain liable to call-up in time of need); and Full Time Reserve Service (Those who can come from either Volunteer Reserve and Regular Reserve pools but are in a regular military billet on a fixed term contract. These definitions can be found on page 8 and pages 11-13 of the 2014 report. There are others, but the figures are negligable.

To cut a long story short - I think you've been confused by the recent change in terminology and have gone with the most recent figures relating to term low readiness reserves, which is woefully out of date. Due to the exponential down turn in the armed forces through redundancies and natural wastage since the 60s the UK Regular Reserve (those that were once regulars and are now help for "times of need") are a tiny fraction of what they once were and whilst this looks weird on paper (or screen in this case) the 2014 report states it to be fact.

The correct figure should be 82340 total reserves made up of 45110 Regular Reserve and 37190 Volunteer Reserve (What we in the UK actually call "the reserves"). There is a 40 man discrepency in the table for some reason. With your permission I'd like to change the total figure back to 82340 and to amend your note (which I think is a great idea, but uses the wrong terminology) to reflect to true figures from 2014. Munchingfoo (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Munchingfoo! I really appreciate you taking the time to contact me here and explain your position. Regarding the Regular Reserve forces, the British Army website explains the different categories very well here, and it applies to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force too:

• The first category is known as the Regular Reserve, which is in turn split into two sub-categories (A and D). Category A is mandatory, so any soldier, airman or sailor must serve in category A upon leaving the Regular military. Category D is voluntary, whereby those who have served their time in category A can voluntarily choose to extend their service in the Regular Reserve.

• The second category is the Long Term Reserve. Since 1997, any ex-Regular who no-longer serves in category A and D is automatically part of the Long Term Reserve until the age of 55.

• The third category are the pensioners, but no MoD publications I have come across have ever reported their strength, so we can ignore these and not discuss them.

Categories A and D of the Regular Reserve serve under a fixed-term reserve contract and are required to report for training or military service when necessary (when called up they are known as the Full Time Reserve Service). Note that these contracts are similar to those of the Volunteer Reserves, but at the same time they are also distinctly different! The Long Term Reserve, however, do not serve under any contract, instead, they remain liable to be recalled in a time of need (or national emergency) under the Reserve Forces Act. Recent MoD publications now only report the strength of the A and D Regular Reserves, which numbered 45,110. They also report the strength of the Volunteer Reserves which numbered 37,190 - but they no-longer report the strength of the Long Term Reserve, and have never reported the strength of the Pensioners.

The last reported strength of the Long Term Reserve was 127,440 in 2007. Therefore, I added the 45,110 personnel of the Category A and D Regular Reserve together with the 127,440 Long Term Reserve and got 172,550 reserves.

Since 2012, MoD publications have been including the Volunteer Reserve along with the active Regular military. You can see this here in table 1, page 6. Notice how the MoD combine the active Regulars with the Volunteer Reserve and call it "UK Forces Service Personnel" (or simply "UK Service Personnel"). This is because of the changes made in the 2010 SDSR and the 2011 "Future Reserves 2020 Review" - as since then, the Volunteer Reserve has been tasked with performing a larger role in UK defence as part of a new "integrated armed forces". So I used the MoD figure of 198,810 for the active personnel.

I hope this explains my reasoning well enough. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.....it seems that India has 3 references as a great power....although I'm not sure if that's enough...maybe we can mention about India in a small paragraph in the Aftermath of Cold War section and a line in the lead. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 sources are good quality academic sources, so I feel that it is more than enough. In fact, India now has more recent academic sources than many of the great powers already mentioned in the article! I added a paragraph on India in the Aftermath of Cold War section and added a 4th academic citation which called India a great power. Personally I think that the map needs to be changed to add India too. Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you added it...I feel India could be added in the map with a mention as a new great power or something that way. Map change would need consensus anyway. ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note... ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I stumbled across this while working on another project. It's gotta be in the public domain.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you don't like a lot Italy ,i'm sorry for you but it has a huge weight in the world at every level.If India (or Brazil) should be added as great power why not Italy that economically overtakes Russia and on the military Germany?Italy overtakes economically India too as GDP and national net wealth above all.Italy overtakes as national net wealth UK too.It seems the new chief of PESD and PESC of EU is Federica Mogherini .Italy in EU is rapresented also by the ECB President Mario Draghi .Italy weighs..and a lot.People added Japan and Germany just to justify France,UK and Russia in great powers list.If i well remember Italy leads Uniting for Consensus that now rapresents 120 states in UN.The only 2 real great powers are USA and China.USA and EU are in fact the only superpowers and China a real potential superpower.Academics opinions aren't sufficient above all when they are partial or based on not complete informations or dated151.40.34.81 (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italy is irrelevant in the context of today great powers. This is reflected in the numerous academic publications which do not mention Italy as being a great power, rather a middle power of little note. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't falsify a source. The book Strategic Vision: America & the Crisis of Global Power doesn't mention India as a Great power, here is the online version of that book. When I fixed this false remark and put the online link of the book, you reverted me leaving an edit summary "Restore sourced material". This is purely unconstructive, don't repeat it again. Nomian (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that publication does mention India as being a great power, along with the 5 permanent members of the UNSC, Japan and Germany. Why don't you actually read the book before making such accusations? Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change Italy article without passing by Italy Talk?First of all Italy is a leading middle power and able to exert its influence on a global scale AS CITED IN THE CITATION POSTED.A major european power AT LEAST a leading or major leading power,i repeat at least.The rest are your personal opinions.The fact that you changed the italian status sveral stimes shows that you haven't well focused Italy.As reported in Italy Talk Lifeintechnicolors you seem to have a anti italian view.You like to low italian image to make better appear some other images like UK in these presentations.Italy and India in Wikipedia are like 2 states (in reality they are great powers,not in the web or in people thinking that read Wikipedia articles-reality is different from appearing or movies) in no man's land.Connected to Italy is Vatican too that is more important than all other powers.Italy as middle power can't be compared to Austria for e.g..Italy is a major middle power able to exert its influence on a global scale this must be well explained,the sentence at the moment is not clear.You should pass by Italy Talk before than changing to have people agreement.Citations aren't sufficient neither complete.

FOCUS & DOUBTS In Wikipedia there people of different religions and believes.I wonder for istance how of a freemasonery of the egyptian rite can write bad things on Napoleon or russian leaders like Putin.I've more than an half idea of administrators or editors like them.Same for other lines of religions or belivers.Do we want to open an article on "Human behaviour and acting in Wikipedia"? 151.40.67.21 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted a couple of your posts on Talk:Italy when I excised the IP's posts (sock of Mediolanum). Hope you don't mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem NeilN, thanks for notifying me, much appreciated. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for watching my talk page. That editor has caused more than one of us to question his competence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check out source in article ".Barak gets bigger and better" It mentions barak as a possible ABM weapons system. Worth checking out. Given the precident of Iron Dome in terms of its remarkably fast development and increasing maturity, This I think should be mentioned somewhere on mainspace.

Any thoughts? Ta for pruning that bloated see also section too. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I mentioned Barak 8s possible use as an ABM weapon in the article, as it is quite an important piece of information, I used a source from defence industry daily. I also added a little information about an ER variant of Barak 8 that will increase its range to 100 km and is reported to eventually equip the future project 15B destroyers. If you ever find good sources, please don't hesitate to add them to the article! Cheers! Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my recent addition to the "Potential Superpowers" page. I would have left it as you had put it, however, you gave no defense as to why I should not have edited. I have deleted your revision on the page, regarding little or no defense of a somewhat important change. If you have a solution that you think would put this to rest, I encourage you to visit my talk page. Happy Christmas! Kieran P. Clark (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly obvious why I reverted your addition of Africa to the article. Africa is not a legal entity and therefore cannot attain the status of superpower, just as any arbitrary group of countries cannot. Furthermore, you provided no reliable sources that argue the merits of Africa being a potential superpower. My solution is that your edits are unsuitable and should remain reverted. I notice another editor reverted your changes too. That should tell you something! Thank you, and happy holidays to you too! Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Royal Air Force, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around too long for me to lecture. Please be careful. Tiderolls 15:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I ask you why you make this edit? (Special:diff/633226371 & Special:diff/633226517)? You say removal of original map and removal of unreferenced content, then why you remove multiple cited content?, but at the same time, Royal Canadian Navy that got no reference at all didn't get removed? Please stop this kind of edit.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None are specifically accompanied with a reference that describes them being a green-water navy.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted the "infantry weapons" because of source problems, when in fact it has source in the links. Maybe they want inline citations. Can you repair it? I just saw you added contents on that page before, so i think maybe you can help. Suneditor (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading Talk:Potential superpowers#Head note. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green-water navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AEGIS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Antiochus the Great, yes you are right about barak 8 not fitted in Kamorta class, I didn't check the source :). happy to see you again how are doing ?.Nicky mathew (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]