06:53

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 you doing ?.Nicky mathew (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! No problem Mathew. I am fine thanks, hope you're keeping well too. Keep up the good work and cheers for the friendly message :) Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antiochus the Great: :) Nicky mathew (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochus the Great! Great to see you! The LCU MK IVs are in active service(4)! You can check the images of all the four launched MK IV..! Only four of the eight are still under construction! I mentioned the MK IVs in the page only after confirming that they are in active service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Launch_of_Yard_2094_(3).jpg http://indiannavy.nic.in/press-release/3rd-lcu-mk-iv-project-launched-grse http://indiablooms.com/ibns_new/news-details/N/9242/fourth-lcu-for-indian-navy-launched-at-grse.html. --Jaaron95 07:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_Navy_ships, you edited the class of LCUs to MKIV and MKIII... How can a class of ship be just it's versions?? I think mentioning "LCU" will be good.. And I would love to patrol new pages.. As I'm a bit newbie, can you guide me whether I should post a request or is it given automatically?? --Jaaron95 13:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaron95 (talk • contribs)

Hi again,3 months ago I saw a news article regarding Saryu class, they mention the class as capable of being upgraded to a light frigate standard and now i tried to find that article now but I didn't get yet.if I manage find it, then I will let you know and we will discuss whether to add it or not. Another thing that I want to ask you is about status of ships, in your recent edits you removed number of ships from status section now it's confusing for the readings to understand how many are under construction, how many are in sea trails in the same class of ships for eg see Kolkata class status , I think we should also mention no. of ships their itself rather than taking it to the note side. thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can find the news article again, or another source which supports the Saryu class capable of being upgraded to light frigate, then we can mention it in the article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please imagaine that the total number of bangladesh armed forces cant be 157000 if the air force personnel is 52000 and the naval force is 48000. Sri Lanka Army has larger force than Sri Lanka Navy and Sri Lanka Air Force. Bangladesh Army cant have only 57000 personnel...MilitaryBangla (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The personnel figure for the Bangladesh Air Force is not accompanied by any citation, and the citation that is provided for the Bangladesh Navy doesn't even work. I would therefore suggest that those figures are incorrect, not the International Institute of Strategic Studies which is a very reliable and authoritative source.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antiochus the great please mention that Iqbal Karim Bhuiyan's photo was removed two years ago... Will you be able to revert that photo again.. also Md Abdul Mubeen's photo and Shah Mohammad Ziaur Rahman's photos have been deleted that is very unfair. MilitaryBangla (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to a report posted in listfistdefence, project 15b destroyers is named Visakhapatnam-class not Bangalore class report here . i am not sure if this report is right but livefistfdefence is considered as best Indian defence website but i didnt find any other source to confirm this report. someone tried to add this new info to Bangalore-class destroyer page but was later removed claiming that livefistfdefence is not a credible source which I do not believe.Nicky mathew (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took a look and couldn't find any other reports which confirmed the 'Visakhapatnam-class'. However, I also couldn't find any reliable sources which confirmed the 'Bangalore class' either! On face value, livefistdefence.com appears to be a reliable source, as the editor, Shiv Aroor, is a respected journalist and news anchor - so I personally see no problems with the source. But if some people are going to start arguing that livefistdefence.com is not a credible source, then it is perhaps best that for now, we just stick to the 100% confirmed named 'Project 15B' and wait for more sources which support 'Visakhapatnam-class'. Cheers.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into that :) Nicky mathew (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me on the List of Russian military aircraft page!

RussianBear158 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Much appreciated. Keep up the good work my friend.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so great, could you not change the information on the page "List of countries by GDP (nominal)" for 2015 year? refer to international monetary fund website for correct 2015 figures and please update, rather than just removing new information and reverting to old info. Hope you are educated person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.164.227.31 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that those 2015 IMF figures are only estimates! The IMF clearly highlights that it is the 2014 GDP figures which are authoritative. Besides, we are still early on in the 2015 year, so it should not be difficult to understand that any 2015 GDP figures are pure speculation at best. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish Armed Forces, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages San Fernando and Ferrol (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) 09:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please would you take a look at this AFD of Tipu-II whenever convenient? Thank you very much, in advance.Nicky mathew (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a traditional very serious BASIC programmer, with LibreOffice Calc macros I have just automatically compacted the 4 IMF tables from the April 2015 World Economic Outlook (WEO) database, after being absolutely or completely sure that ALL the previous data is kept. Please believe me that this is the case. :-) Best regards from the Argentinian city of Bahía Blanca ("White Bay"). :-) MaxBech1975 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Type 079-class landing ship, Antiochus the Great!

Wikipedia editor Winner 42 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very nice article, great to see these military articles being written :)

To reply, leave a comment on Winner 42's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited People's Liberation Army Navy Submarine Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Pacific (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) 10:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating my figures... I incorrectly included 1 Type 081 mine countermeasure vessel instead of 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyrover (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello Antiochus the Great, thank you showing interest in ins vishal talk page i was having a really hard time with that editor for the last one week or so.please if possible also take a look at INS Vishal (talk is already going on ), Supercarrier (didnt start any talk, he was previously blocked for 24 for edit warring on Supercarrier) and DRDO AURA.Nicky mathew (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is unfortunate that he is causing trouble. If he continues, I think the best course of action it to report him to dispute resolution. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok report him if he revert your edit again and leave the page as it is and lets not break (3RR) rule. now he is asking for citation to prove only 2 carriers are planned under Vikrant-class. funny :).

hello talk is still going on Talk:Vikrant-class aircraft carrier.please take a look if possible :( Nicky mathew (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello

glad to meet you people who have decided to manipulate others and enforce your ideas.It shows the level of courage in you guys. M.srihari (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

check User talk:Nicky mathew heading Regarding edit disputes to see the full conversation.Nicky mathew (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Supercarrier". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! JAaron95 (Talk) 09:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Supercarrier". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! JAaron95 (Talk) 16:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2002 the tonnage of the Italian Navy was 295000.Since that time the Italian Navy has grown as tonnage and as number of ships.184000 refered to its tonnage is totally wrong.151.40.87.140 (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]