User talk:Aviator Jr

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Regarding your recent edits to Air India fleet, it has been clearly mentioned earlier that details of wet-leased aircraft should not be included as per WP:ALFC. You have again made the same edits and please stop making such disruptive edits. Regarding the other edits, simplyflying is not a WP:RS; if you have an official source for the Boeing orders, it can be incorporated. Same goes for special livery cases, need reliable sources.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magentic Manifestations I have now understood the problem about wet leased aircraft. But I have found and given enough references about B737 Max orders and the transfer of 50 of them to Air India Express and I have re-edited the page for this. In addition I also have given the special livery aircrafts. Hope this is okay now! Aviator Jr (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please check the alignment of text and ensure the same when you are adding it. Another point, please do not add Simpleflying as a source as per WP:RS and ensure that other notable sources are there. Have made the changes for now. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit @Magentic Manifestations

Aviator Jr (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aviator Jr! Your additions to Indian Ballistic Missile Defence Programme have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for informing... I will take care from now Aviator Jr (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Echo1Charlie. I noticed that you recently removed content from HAL AMCA without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Happy editing:) Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Aviator Jr

I've noticed you've made a slew of edits to the Wiki article concerning India's Project-75 (India) submarine acquisition project; however, it has been noted some of your edits have not included specific reasons as to such. An instance, for example, would be your edit to put most of the sub-topics entirely under the History chapter, namely,

• Planning
• Progress (and its associated timeline)
• Strategic partnership policy
• Post-2020 developments

Do note, this article is for the convenience of the reader, and partitioning the content into multiple relevant chapters aids in reading convenience. Do not commit edits merely because its suits your taste.

Another, the Contestants chapter should come immediately after the History chapter, as the former is a 2020 event, which connect the pre-2020 planning and the post-2020 delays and revival. Please do no change that also.

Yours sincerely.
Silver Pavilion (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are not merely because it "suits my taste". Why not keep the entire timeline of events under Progress section with decade wise sub-sections? 2021-2024 sections is afterall Progress of the programme only. Also, now that the programme has suddenly gained momentum and there are lots of recent development the Shortlisting section should become Contestants as this no more remains just the development of 2020 and is being updated regularly. Also, History section you may kept as separate section. Thanks, Aviator Jr (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that you have no objections but I have just transferred your recent well-written and sourced contribution on the above subject from the "Cavalry" article to the "Mounted Police" article. There are no significant changes in the wording and it now provides a new India section. Regards Buistr (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I did not know about this page. Aviator Jr (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please stop adding dubious/fantasy material about the Indian military, sourced to "defence.in", it's a private/personal website/blog hosted by GoDaddy.com, with striking similarities to a previous website in India that has been blacklisted here, and NOT a reliable source by Wikipedia's rules. The page about the "Project 18 destroyer" that you created is also a recreation of a page that has been deleted twice at AfD for being a proven hoax, based on a fantasy navy thread on Reddit. If you continue adding dubious material sourced to very dubious websites you will be reported to WP:Ani, seeking administrator action against you. Drachentöter⁰⁰¹ | talk 12:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire page on Project 18 class destroyer is not dependant on one source. Are you sure that they are all "fantasy"-based reports? These information are based on official press releases and posts. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not, they're speculations about what a new destroyer might be like, the only thing that is known, and properly sourced, is that the Indian Navy wants to build a number of new large destroyers, everything else is pure speculation, and even the name, "Project 18-class destroyer", is pure speculation, based on the fantasy navy thread on Reddit, so when I have time for it I intend to nominate your new fantasy article for deletion. Drachentöter⁰⁰¹ | talk 16:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The development of new generation destroyers was officially revealed by the Vice Chief of Indian Navy. The other specifications of 144 VLS configuration could be seen in a video posted by one of Navy's official twitter handle. Project 18 is nothing Reddit special the same term has also been used on the USNI News article I have referred to on the page. Please have a look at it and read them properly. In fact, the page has also been reviewed and no change had to be made. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USNI say "A new next-generation destroyer, sometimes dubbed Project 18", meaning that some people sometimes call it "Project 18", but Wikipedia does not go by what some people sometimes say, we go by what reliable sources say the name of the project is, and the only ones who can definitely say what the project is called, if even there is a specific project, is the Indian Navy, through their official websites. So no, we can NOT have an article named "Project 18 destroyer". And regardless what the article title is we can't have an article where the only thing that is properly sourced is that the Indian Navy wants to build a number of large destroyers, with everything else in the article nothing but speculations, Drachentöter⁰⁰¹ | talk 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, at least this is proven that Indian Navy does have a new programme for designing, developing and procuring a class of 10,000 tonne Next Generation Destroyers so you want to say that changing the name to Next Generation Destroyers will solve your problem? No one else has yet disclosed any problem with the page. The VLS configuration is very much prominent in the video released by the official Twitter handle of the Navy. Some time or the other new details will be released about the new project and will be useful in future. In fact, the US Navy is also looking for its DD(X) class of destroyers in future which is still on drawing boards on the page exists with whatever information that is available. Aviator Jr (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't, since all of the specifications and details in the article are totally made up, based on the fantasy thread on Reddit... Drachentöter⁰⁰¹ | talk 07:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you find any fantasy or Reddit references in the article? Neither did I look for any Reddit content related to this nor found any nor am I a member of it. The Next Generation Destroyer is a fact and will eventually be the successor of Visakhapatnam class destroyers of the Navy. The article is based on any "thread on Reddit". Your fantasy about the article is not justified. Where do you think the image of the infobox arrives from? I repeat it is from an official video release of the Indian Navy! The video does reveal the weapons configuration idea of the future ship. Any kind of new design evolves from its concept stage. Then how do you justify the page based on US Navy DDG(X) programme. Aviator Jr (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to learn how to read sources... Drachentöter⁰⁰¹ | talk 08:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Pralay (missile), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. The sources you provided for the edit do not support the specifics of the claim you are making in the text. Specifically, they do not reference MCTR by name, and are speculation about future developments. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot go beyond what reliable sources say about a subject. Thanks for your consideration. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 09:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there's a distinction between launchers, system units, batteries, and regiments. Specifically, the 62 Smerch system units acquired by India equate to 372 launchers, since each system unit comprises 6 launchers. It's not like - IA acquired total 372 launchers and in 2019 they only had 62. And if pinaka's one regiment consists of 18 launchers it doesn't mean bm-21s or smerch's regiment also consists same units of launcher Dl ff (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but all the 62 units are not active right now so the value there should not be 372. There are only 3 regiments of Smerch active right now. It is similarly applicable in case of BM-21 of which only 5 regiments are active.^[1] So, this needs correction. Do you have any idea about how many launchers or units are active with each regiment of BM-21 and Smerch? Also, please provide a source which suggests that India bought 62 units (372 launchers).Aviator Jr (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Aviator Jr (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India acquired 62 system units (6 launch vehicle for each) and produced some in Country with OFB^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}, also india aquired 81 10×10 launch vehicle for smerch systems, if the total number of launchers is only 42 than buying 81 additional vehicles made no sense. Dl ff (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources like spslandforces and Eurasian Times never specified any proper source. They are not reliable. The sources I mentioned refers to Ministry of Defence.

Moreover, there are no reports of local manufacturing of launchers, only ammunition is being manufactured.

About the 81 vehicles, all vehicles are never used for launchers, there are equal number of ammunition replenishment vehicles in each battery. A battery, hence, includes 4 launchers and 4 resupply vehicles. Again, a regiment has 3 batteries and 2 eeserved launchers. So, 42 launchers, 36 resupply vehicles and some reserved ones. So, 81 does make a lot of sense.

Aviator Jr (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: ^{[9][10][11][12]} Aviator Jr (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's essential to use direct numbers from sources like Eurasian Times or The Hindu BusinessLine when editing Wikipedia. Instead of making assumptions or calculations, let's rely on verifiable information to ensure the accuracy of the numbers. While Eurasian Times is one source, there are numerous others suggesting the Indian Army operates 62 Smerch systems, consisting of 6 launch vehicles each.Dl ff (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested any assumption. It is quite clear, each regiment has 14 launchers. 2 regiments or 28 launchers were ordered by India in mid-2000s. So 3 regiments means 42 launchers with support vehicles. A unit with 6 launchers is not the system that Indian Army uses for any branch. 3 regiments can't have 372 launchers in total. The regiment-battery structure was said by an Army officer in an article. I have provided references for the above information beforehand.

Aviator Jr (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to INS Kadamba has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. C F A 20:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes has been reverted:

• in: EMBT, Leclerc XLR, Panther KF51 because in 'See also' section there are only French or German projects of fourth generation tank (EMBT, Leclerc and Panther is French / German tanks). This is a list of related articles (other French / German projects), not a list of all articles about fourth generation tanks
• in: K2 Black Panther, T-14 Armata, Challenger 3 - Wikipedia:NPOV. In 'See also' section there is wikilink to List of main battle tanks by generation, 'See also' section is not the place to list all the fourth generation tanks separately or to advertise an Indian tank. By the way, why should the Indian tank be favored? The general link of List of main battle tanks by generation is sufficient.

I understand that you created an article about an Indian tank and that you come from India and for you the Indian tank is important, but Wikipedia is an international project and you cannot favor anything. Your continued actions of favoring and advertising a tank from your country will not be tolerated. WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Wikilink to article about Indian tank is where it belongs: List of equipment of the Indian Army and List of main battle tanks by generation#Next Generation. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better to explain these things properly while you remove the links from the page. I linked these pages because these are similar projects of different national origins and not for "advertising". Aviator Jr (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

		The Original Barnstar
		For your great articles related to the Indian Armed Forces. Keep up the good work! ĀDITYA 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Aviator Jr (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviator Jr. Thank you for your work on Future Main Battle Tank. Another editor, MolecularPilot, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Amazing work! Such a detailed article, clear WP:GNG pass with the references.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MolecularPilot}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MolecularPilot: Thanks for the feedback! Aviator Jr (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aviator Jr. Thank you for your work on Adamya-class patrol vessel. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! May you and your family have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit to Boeing C-17 Globemaster III appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions in this edit here, have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.)

To see the possible source of the copyrighted text, look in the edit summary which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. There should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation, set off using the blockquote template. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Being a defence enthusiast, I see your hard work in the field. You truely deserve it. ßﾚααdα (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Aviator Jr (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Raihanur (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not vandalism. I have cited the sources in the body of the article. Aviator Jr (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about Special:Diff/1289218378 and Special:Diff/1289218596. Raihanur (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Now I have valid sources and citations for what I wrote. Do not keep reverting other's edits. Let this not lead to edit war. Aviator Jr (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 20:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! — Cerium4B—Talk? • 20:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In major edits, I usually give edit summary. I might miss out on filling the edit summary in minor edits (like changing or adding punctuations and unwanted spaces). Still I will try to give edit summaries as much as possible. Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarise yourself with wp:rs — Cerium4B—Talk? • 20:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. Aviator Jr (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your recent edits to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict page. I noticed that The Washington Post recent article on Pakistan Airbase Damage also mentions PAF Base Shahbaz Airbase. Please go through the below article thoroughly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/14/india-pakistan-strikes-conflict-damage/

Thanks and Regards, Chandan Ck17840 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ecrusized_and_unilateral_changes Soni (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing. I will see. Aviator Jr (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		152.56.16.155 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks a lot! Aviator Jr (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my suggestion on Talk:DRDO AEW&CS. I’d prefer not to make significant changes on my own to prevent edit wars. Dl ff (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On my way... Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your changes on Future of the Indian Air Force, edit traffic may have caused some unintended text removal; i tried to re-include them. Dl ff (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The correct plural of aircraft is also aircraft. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. But what is the context? Has been there a mistake somewhere? Aviator Jr (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, it seems it was introduced with this edit. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rectifying. I didn't notice the mistake. Aviator Jr (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is to bring to your attention that user @Manrehmando has been editing the page without valid reference towards a particular school of thought. I have reversed the changes. Please take note. Thanks AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviator Jr Hi there. Could you kindly assist me in verifying whether the Brahmos wiki page's heading "Combat Use" subsection "2025 India–Pakistan conflict" permits or prohibits acknowledgment of Dr. B.K. Das, Director General for Electronics & Communication Systems at DRDO, about Brahmos' performance during Operation Sindoor? I made the edit, however it was undone by another editor. Kindly refer this source ^[1] Thank you. Surabhi9191 (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not necessary to add this. It is not much assertive about any detail. You could take advice from other editors as well though. Aviator Jr (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviator Jr Thanks for the clarification. I'll also verify with other editors. Surabhi9191 (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I would like to draw your attention to the unexplained removal of information from the BrahMos wiki page by user :@Masterkaihewho. I had reverted the change. Kindly check. Surabhi9191 (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked it. Thanks for reverting it. Aviator Jr (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please understand ASW SWC is a corvette designed for anti sub ops whereas NGMV is a corvette designed to hit land or sea targets so latter cant succeed the former by role. also do note that all ship class are named after lead ship in this case lead ship is INS Arnalam, named after ship that sank in bay of bengal in 1987. please show me any ship class named only after a project name in IN or in any other navy. If you find then good otherwise request you to rename the ASW SWC page as Arnala class, you can put (ASW SWC in full or acronym), FYKI Sindhughosh submarines, designated 877EKM, were designed as part of Project 877/kilo class of soviet union. but each country names these subs in their fleet after lead ship. i hope this should be reason enough to rename it correctly. btw thanks for adjustments in patrol boat section Bonadart (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NGMV succeeds the ASW SWC by precedence, not necessarily by role — and I have not claimed otherwise. If you examine the individual articles of Royal Navy frigates, you'll find that all frigates, regardless of their primary role (ASW, ASuW, AAW, or General Purpose), are consistently listed in the "Class before" and "Class after" fields of the infobox.

More importantly, for other Indian Navy corvettes — such as the Kamorta, Kora, Khukri, and Veer classes — precedence and/or role have already been used to establish lineage in infobox fields. For example, ASW SWC succeeds Abhay class by role, and Kamorta class by precedence.

Therefore, I request that the recent change be reverted for consistency. Otherwise, to apply the same logic, a large number of Royal Navy frigate infoboxes would also require modification — which is clearly neither practical nor desirable. Aviator Jr (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you missed the core point, pls chk the previous arnala class it was used as sub chaser corvett, but it was built by soviet union as petya class light frigate, so what succeeds what doesnt matter what is it used for matters. what brits used them for dont matter what IN uses it for matters. see japan wiki its 4 flat tops, are same category but designated different are used for different role, 1st 2 are heli carrier and next 2 are f35 carrier so NGMV will never succeed the ASW SWC by precedence, nor by role. as for naming i know i am correct but will wait lets see what happens at ins mahe induction Bonadart (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understands how the relation between Arnala and Petya becomes relevant in this discussion. Let me guve you another example. The article Durg-class corvette with its ASuW role mentions both Abhay-class (ASW role) and Veer-class (ASuW role) in its "Class after" column. Aviator Jr (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the confusion in naming the article, a group of ships falls under the same ship class if and only if they have "similar design" (as defined in Wikipedia itself). But this is not the case here. The designs delivered by GRSE and CSL is very different as seen in the physical dimensions (displacement, length and beam) itself; and GRSE design is larger. So both cannot be kept under some X-class designation article. Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi it seems you are doing good work indeed, btw i need help on IRS-class ACTCM barge, this is about a series of 19 ammunition barge, i am unable to find any source about the 11th barge by Suryadipta Projects, 10 are available, can you find it, if you can pls upte the page. Bonadart (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I have not found any update about the 11th barge from Suryadipta Projects. I will add the information as soon as I get any news. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok Bonadart (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AviatorJr.Let's start projet Anti-Submarine Warfare Shallow Water Craft in this we will create all the Wikipedia pages for the ships Badrinarayan konar (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please Reply Badrinarayan konar (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be able to contribute much... And we don't have much details about the designs of Mahe class (CSL-built ones). Aviator Jr (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay by the way. You can create pages for the rest of Arnala corvettes. The data will be mostly the same like the existing articles. Only difference will be construction timeline and their citations. Aviator Jr (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay,you can also dear swastik Badrinarayan konar (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it you can also create pages Badrinarayan konar (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will create articles you just add Information and Badrinarayan konar (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good. Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we are the Bengali pair Badrinarayan konar (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me about the article you are creating or planning to create I can also contribute it til doshomi of durga puja Badrinarayan konar (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sure. I was thinking of developing an article on the Project 76 submarine of the Indian Navy. I am finding details on the project as of now. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay I cab help you but how Badrinarayan konar (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am operating from phone that's why spelling mistakes and tell mevhowvi can help you Badrinarayan konar (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will create an article on Project 76 by this week. You might add info there. Aviator Jr (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK Badrinarayan konar (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some citatons Badrinarayan konar (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Project 76 submarine. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you have done the citations which I have found Badrinarayan konar (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Do not undo maintenance edits. Put 'in use' tags while making successive major edits. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of an "in use" tag. Could you help me understand how and when exactly to put it? I was not aware of such provisions and I did not mean to disrupt the maintenance edit. I would reintroduce your changes within the next few minutes. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link to the template page. All you have to do is put this → {{in use}} − at the top of the article. After you are done, simply delete it. I can redo the maintenance part. It would be easier that way. Just do let me know. Thanks . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Aviator Jr (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Are you done updating? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely. But I will not add anything within the next few hours... Aviator Jr (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then I'll do the maintenance part. You can start from my revision or whichever is newer. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Aviator Jr,

I feel that the edits on 'Ashni drone platoon' and 'Bhairav Light Commando Battalions' in the article can be considerably shortened, with references to List of Corps equipped with Bhariav battalions probably removed.

Need to blend these with the existing article, rather than stand out.

What do you think?

Yak94 (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that can be done. Aviator Jr (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yak94 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aviator Jr. We can create of group for solving this matters with members like @Surabhi9191, @Cdr. Erwin Smith, @Badrinarayan konar and @AbhijnanGhosh87 @4-RAZOR 01. Badrinarayan konar (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea indeed. Where do you intend to create the group? Aviator Jr (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipedia Badrinarayan konar (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but which place Badrinarayan konar (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will you create Badrinarayan konar (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No no. You can create the group. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

but how Badrinarayan konar (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea whether groups can be formed in Wikipedia. Are you thinking to create a group in WhatsApp or something? Aviator Jr (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By an article in wikipedia Badrinarayan konar (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do. Aviator Jr (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think any further about this? Is it possible to create a group by a Wikipedia article? If it is, please proceed. Aviator Jr (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think no Badrinarayan konar (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I might have a workable idea if you think of doing so on WhatsApp. Aviator Jr (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no,I think not everyone shall share their number Badrinarayan konar (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to share their number. Firstly, any one of us will put the proposal in someone's talk page and one of us can share our email id (gmail or something). Then those who agrees will just send a mail to the given id with their Wiki user name. Then a WhatsApp group will be created, the GROUP LINK will be shared as replies to the respective mails. All of us can then join it without sharing their personal info on the web. To be safe, we can delete the entire conversation from here. It might be of great help in editing articles if this happens. What do you say? It's your call. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

very good idea Badrinarayan konar (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@4-RAZOR 01, @Cdr. Erwin Smith, @Badrinarayan konar, @Surabhi9191 and @AbhijnanGhosh87. I will be nominating two or three articles, one by one, for the Category:Good articles under the warfare section. This includes Long Range – Anti Ship Missile (India) and Project 17B-class frigate, respectively. If and when the review for them starts, suggestions might arise from the reviewer. By any chance if I am unable to respond by implementing them, I hope someone of you might step in for the same. (You might be the reviewer also.) Meanwhile, you can give some suggestion as well. Thanks. Wikipedia:Good article instructions, Wikipedia:Good article criteria, Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Warfare. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy and Absolutely willing to help! 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with two articles. GRSE Mauritius offshore patrol vessel was a project which resulted in MCGS Barracuda. They are basically the same project. (India's first exported warship). There are two options.

Either keep two separate articles just like Next Generation Air Dominance resulted in Boeing F-47 'or' Long Range Strike Bomber resulted in Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider. In this case, we need to Keep the 1st article until contruction followed by a brief intro of the contract and construction in Barracuda article and its Operational history section.

Or, just merge the articles. Can someone take up this work? (I prefer the second option since the data available is not a large one). Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Quality of GRSE OPV is not, well encyclopaedic. I think I'll put in the merge in a few minutes. It will ease up acces anyways. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would help a lot. Thank you. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've done most of the merge, will record the statements on thiere talk pages now, I'll cleanup the pages after that 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. That's a quick response! Aviator Jr (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, love to help AbhijnanGhosh87 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, ive rewritten some sections of LR-ASHM, particularly with note to Criterion 1.A,1.B and (i think) fixed problems with 2.C and 3.B

we might need diffrent sources to verify content and i am suggesting to prehaps add domestic reactions as well as those from the US,China and Pakistan. I dont know weather the article has been made sufficently neutral in this regard.I suggest working on adding diffrent sources ( i'll look for better, prehaps anything above or equal to eurasian times will be seen as acceptable). I've also incorporated most of the testing part to the development phase, as unlike the page for Agni-V, we only have limited info, that too from two tests. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will work on that after a while... Aviator Jr (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviator Jr @Cdr. Erwin Smith, @Badrinarayan konar@ Surabhi9191@AbhijnanGhosh87

after much thought, I've decided to proceed with the Idea of creating a page with all the past equipment used by the Indian army. The Draft article has been created here ➡ Draft:List of historical equipment of the Indian Army.

As I will be unavialable for large scale editing on a big article like this from later this week until june (examinations), I'm requesting that you guys can help me write this article, with a plan on having this published by independence day. This might be one of our biggest contributions to wikipedia and will greatly aid many in researching the history of our armed forces. I am proposing that his article be created on the same lines as List of historical ships of the Indian Navy and List of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force and complete this trifecta. As of now i've only included some post WW2 equipment, though if found, it would be really beneficial to include those after 1857. I also do not have much in the way of a good set of refrences on date of service and numbers in service for them.

Hope to see this in the works! Best Regards 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the historical equipment have to be listed from 1947 Badrinarayan konar (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finding citations for this large list of equipment will be a problem. And this is going to be an uncomplete list. However, another section for "standard issue rifles" can be added since 1947, citations for which are available on INSAS rifle article. Progress made on the article is great. I will add info whenever I get some. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

if you are online help me add the Lee Enfield rifle Badrinarayan konar (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that by tonight. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 😊 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of bayonets used by the Indian forces at https://web.archive.org/web/20230408151639/http://worldbayonets.com/Bayonet_Identification_Guide/India/India_2.html. It has been used in a citation in the "India" section of L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle. @4-RAZOR 01 and @Badrinarayan konar, this could be useful in this article. (The post 1947 ones) Aviator Jr (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks 😎 Badrinarayan konar (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Long Range – Anti Ship Missile (India) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Metalicat -- Metalicat (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Long Range – Anti Ship Missile (India) has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Metalicat -- Metalicat (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdr. Erwin Smith, @Badrinarayan konar, @4-RAZOR 01, @Surabhi9191 and @AbhijnanGhosh87

International Fleet Review 2026, Exercise MILAN 2026, and Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) Conclave of Chiefs are three major events that are being carrier out. I propose to publish the IFR 2026 article on the lines of International Fleet Review 2016. This should be done on Mission Mode. Best if everyone participates in this. If carried out, reply here and I will create the article straight away. Regards. Aviator Jr (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All in, though I was wondering if it is possible to merge 2016 and 2026. But the potential for details seem to outweigh the need for merge, so GO for IFR'26 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

International Fleet Review 2026 has been created. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, noticed you overwrite content most of what I've wrote when I was creating the page on List of ships present at International Fleet Review 2026

Hats off to you man, you just managed to write it as in a table! It looks far better than my list order👏👏👏!!!
4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was trying to make it a bit better than the 2016 edition article. I was creating the article from scratch also. That was a coincidental clash. Could you give me time until 5:30 pm IST so I can give all the input I want? After that you can improve ant give further inputs as well. Does it work good for you? Aviator Jr (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does! Good job man, I appreciate all the efforts! Was bored travelling so I started work on my phone on the article. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks brother... You can keep working on the main article though. Aviator Jr (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's some good speed to add those information in the individual ship articles. I also suggest adding the information in the foreign ships participating in the event especially with additional info like dates, hosted by, hosted in and citations including the ones from local sources of the ship's country of origin, if available. Like TASS in case of Russia and Philippine News Agency. This will be more verifiable and reliable is the ships of their respective navies. Keep it up. Aviator Jr (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will! Haven't got long, but will fill as much as possible! 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know you are busy with the article write up, but should i re-order all the international ships on the basis of tonnange? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but within their respective sections of course. Like surface combatants, patrol boats, auxiliary ships and so on. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will be unavailable until tomorrow morning. And there is a new update on INS Sumedha being the presidential yatch which I added in the IFR articles. It will be good addition to the ship's page. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

K, will do both 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only three ships are due, KD Sri Indera Sakti, UMS King Aung Zeya and RNOV Sadh are the only ones participating in the exercise but due in the article, as per https://www.ifrmilan26.com/. But I can't find supporting secondary sources, Indian or otherwise. Listing down many Indian ships is due also, especially the Indian Coast Guard ones. Finishing the list before IFR would be great. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I belive media sources will cite when the ships reach Indian waters. Until then maybe we can use the website as a source for the three ships 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added them and the site also say that 3 Coast guard ships, and several small ships, the Tankers will also be there. I will add them when I get to my laptop later today. But it's hard finding sources 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do you have links for Indian aircraft?, ive onlt got the German P8.. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great work within the last hour, but please use a more accurate citation for each of them. As for the Indian aircraft the press release has only some aircraft types but not the numbers. Aviator Jr (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY Calling everyone

We have a new war afoot here..

Request everone to contribute ASAP to 2026 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict

Over.4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will give inputs whenever I receive any. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!, gotta go wont be able to edit much of this tonight, will try to find time for works tommorow. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, almost time for me too. Another thing to point out, Category:Airstrikes conducted by India must have articles which already exists, especially the from India–Pakistan wars and conflicts. We should add the categories their. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

copy that. However, none of the airstikes from '65 and '71 have pages for Indian offenses. Let me see Kargil, i think Mirages bombed some places, and ive read somewhere that sometime in 1950's some oraguans jets hit terror camps is asom. ned to see to that too 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage 2000 bombings were conducted in Operation Safed Sagar. I have added some pages. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, got that covered. I cant find a page for the Sargodha raid in '65 and neither for a Hunter raid on Lahore in '71. The hunter raid i think knoked out at leasst 5-6 shenyangs. I'll create articles for them in May. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if we can add longewala as it was more of CAS mission than an airstrike. The Meghna helibrige was also same 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good arguement. Then they can be included in Category:Operations involving the Indian Air Force. Aviator Jr (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ALR, wilco 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

im signin out for the day, I've got boards day after tomorrow so better study for that Tommorow instead of editing 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Then concentrate on your studies. The exams are more important. All the best! Aviator Jr (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

day after tomorrow is my birthday and I will become 20 Badrinarayan konar (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page HAL Dhruv, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job. You are an inspiration. Sumbria.vikramaditya (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of thanks. Regards. Aviator Jr (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, after some mid afternoon work, i had seen to meet all you neccesary criteria that youve suggested and incorporated it into the table. In addition, ive also split Operation Urja Suraksha from Operation Sankalp. I am pleased to note that the page incorporated the best of all suggested changes while leaving more room to grow as more and more Indian ships cross ormuz. I Invite you to countinue work there. 14:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC) 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new article. I had already created another table which better summarises the details of the Hormuz transits. I would prefer that structure than the current fragmented ones. This one merges the details of two different ships together which makes it difficult for the reader to navigate. Aviator Jr (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I shall split for each individual ship. Do keep up the work! 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doneso! 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am implementing certain changes to the page. I will retain the ship database as per timeline as you have tried. Aviator Jr (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few points I would like to convey

1. The MarineTraffic and other related website-based citations will be temporary and their data will change after each trip of the ship. So we have to effectively archive the citations so that they remain valid reference in future.
2. The citations that I have given in the new article might have several duplicates. I will try to reduce such instances but kindly re-check if there are any other occurance in case I miss out.
3. Also I might have deleted some critical information that you had added. Please don't mind and add them in the table or the text. :-)

I will edit again tomorrow sometime after I publish my changes after some time now. Thanks. Aviator Jr (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to change w.r.t. citations. I have written an achivements sections and will look forward on the peace process to complete writing it. Thanks for the rapid work!. Un fortunatly, I cannot seem to find archival data on souce and destinatin for the Marine traffic one, however i think when a person who has access to premium versions of the site might be able to go look at the history logs and prove it. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"A person who has access to premium versions of the site might be able to go look at the history logs and prove it."

I have added "limited" access level to the citation. This should solve the case. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that works, thanks 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hey man, I hink a few seconds after I had written about the new HAL LCH facility under the production section you had published a similar section under orders. I've reconciled the statements for now. I've also move HAL tumkur factory to operations section under HAL's page as in the future it can also be expanded to include HAL Airport, and the factories in Nashik and Bangalore. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mergers and moves. I had entirely overlooked the edit. If I find any information, history or capacity, about the facilities in Nashik and Bangalore I will add them in the Operations section. And these new sections, whenever made, must precede the Tumkur facility. Aviator Jr (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, I will see about adding HAL Airport 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]