User talk:Field Marshal - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Field Marshal (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 1 July 2020 (→Message from User:Wacky Wars: i ain't replying). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:44, 1 July 2020 by Field Marshal (talk | contribs) (→Message from User:Wacky Wars: i ain't replying)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

To start a new section for a message, please click here. Do sign it with ~~~~

Suvadeep Saha

Bro you have commmented on wrong page. "Hdmanohar" has asked that question to me that whether he will name the article as wagc3 or wag10. He will give both name on that article. Also railway writes wagc3 in their loco list not wag10 you can check out that. Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RDSO uses the name WAG10, furthermore the Railway Board had also adviced for that name to maintain the proper order of loco numbering. You can check the provisional speed certificate for wag 10 where you will find further info. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You have written this line "the cab profile of existing locomotives was widened to increase the field of view from the control cab". Actually original wdp-4 cabs were not widened instead a newer model was introduced with wider cabs called wdp-4b. That is why I have modify your edit because it means that existing wdp-4s cabs are widened. You check out that.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir, the older WDP-4s which had the standard cabs are also being retrofitted with widened cabs. For example loco number 20027 earlier had a sharp face but now has the WDP4B cab face even though the classification is the same old WDP-4.Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that all the locomotives are modified with wider cabs. If not then you should modify your edit in the criticism.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I hope you have properly read what my edit says. Here, let me quote it for you -

in response, the cab profile of some WDP-4s were widened to increase the field of view

Do note that I've written some and not all. I hope that answers your query. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed that because I have corrected it with some WDP-4. You have to make some more correction in that "criticism" topic that you have written "the hood" it will be called as "long hood". You can check out in youtube that it is called long hood in this link "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AMXkORUdOg" , you should watch and listen the video carefully from 5:57 min to 6:07 min then you will under stood what is short hood and long hood. You have made a mistake in the top speed of wdg-4 in the infobox. You have written 105kmph but actually it will be 100kmph according to dlw you can check out on this link "https://dlw.indianrailways.gov.in/works/uploads/File/WDG4.pdf". But wdg-4 can go beyond that speed with passenger trains.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It was an error on my part that I forgot to write 'some' and pressed the save changes button. Thank you for rectifying it. Regarding the hood part, Locomotives like WDM-3A and WDM3D have a short and long hood because the cab is situated in the middle but in WDP-4 the cab is at one extreme end, and the entirety of the hood is behind the cab. So the terminology used here is cab forward and hood forward. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages articles must be written in a way that a layman can understand them easily. Saying long hood instead of just hood sounds a bit more complex, however, that's just my take and you are welcome to change the 'hood' forward to 'long hood forward'. Also, the top speeds that I have mentioned are correct. They are taken from RDSO speed certificates. In the PDF that I have attached, see the first paragraph. You will see the speed limit of WDG-4 stated to be 105kmph as per RDSO letter SD.WDG4.11 . Also, I know that the loco has a higher speed potential but reaching those speeds is deemed unsafe by CRS and RDSO which is why we need not mention it in the article. Also, we don't know the exact numbers after which the loco would just oscillate too much and go off the rails. What you have shared is a DLW brochure, I think that RDSO document holds more value since RDSO is the main standards organization of Indian Railways. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Put zones on the left side of the table and complete the sheds with rest of the data quickly.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I've put the Zones on the left now. What is the rest of the data you are talking about? Also, seeing that there aren't many people who contribute to the Indian Railway Wiki articles, I thank you for your contribution and look forward to work with you! PS. If you have the data, you can add it into the pages, don't worry if it's a bit clunky, I'll refine that for you! :) -- Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I have renovate the loco shed with full details. So, whatever updates need to be done in the locomotive shed I will do that you should go with the other updates of the article.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Give your mailid in my talk page so,that I can contact you easily.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I have got your mail id. I will send you a mail on your mail I'd.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Good Night. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Same to you.Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I have send you a mail in your mail id confirm me that you have got the mail. Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me in detail about your thinking that you have written in Indian railway wiki project talk page. Suvadeep Saha56 (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian locomotive class WDAP-5

Hey fellow railfan, I have started the article on the Indian locomotive class WDAP-5. but since I have exams please try to built the article in my absence --Hdmanohar (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for making the page. Don't worry I will do my best! Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes man i'm michu from IRFCA. Whats your IRFCA id?--Hdmanohar (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

user:backontrack email: apmarshal3102@gmail.com Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey man I asked to create the article not mark it as a Stub. Hope you will start the work.--Hdmanohar (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently busy in reviving the wikiproject Indian railways (you too are a member there). After I do that I will contribute to the WDAP-5. I will also add wdap5 to the to-do list of the wikiproject so more people will start contributing. I have sent a request to rdso for documents of wdap5 like I did with WDP4. It will take some time but it wil be done. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Indian locomotive class WDM-2G

As may have noticed the article is under construction. The reason I copied the infobox from WDM-2 is so that I can edit WDM-2G easily. The values will change in coming days. If you noticed all my loco articles are created this way--Hdmanohar (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

IRFCA FAQ project

Hey man i have also requested to join the FAQ rewrite which was accepted. But due to some issues I have been denied permission. i have requested the IRFCA mods to resolve the issue and will help in the rebuilding of our prestigious site--Hdmanohar (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hdmanohar: Good. We really need people like you. Once the faq is written we can easily source data from there for wiki articles too. Do you want me to request the mods about the issue? Also give me your email, if possible, so we can talk over Google hangouts. --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For making a team and reviving WikiProject Indian railways naveenpf (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for my first barnstar @Naveenpf:, it mean a lot especially since it is related to railways! Going through the revision history, I did realise that you are one of the earliest editors to work on that WikiProject! Consider adding your name to the active member list?--Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the good work on articles related to Indian locomotive Huss 12:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian locomotive class WAGC3/WAG-10

Hey man can you create the WAG-10 article. I am currently busy --Hdmanohar (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hdmanohar:I have exams this month, ill see if i can. --Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Field Marshal Aryan: no man I'm not leaving Misplaced Pages,I lost interest in the WAG-10 article. I will begin the shed articles from monday. --Hdmanohar (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hello Field Marshal and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Correction

China didn't detain any Indian soldiers.

See

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-53102629

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-china-denies-seizing-indian-personnel-during-galwan-valley-face-off-2828683

https://www.dw.com/en/china-denies-seizing-indian-troops/a-53869186 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveEatingBats (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian soldiers have never been captured china has officialy announced nd Indian Army also clearly said there has been no detention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.222.122.177 (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Signature

Hi Field Marshal Aryan, I am afraid your current signature is a bit too shouting. It is quite distracting in the midst of talk page discussions, e.g., Talk:2020 China-India skirmishes. Would you consider toning it down a little please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Sure thing. Can you please tell if any one of these is better? If not, I understand , and will use this --> Field Marshal Aryan (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The second one might be ok. Can you put that here so we can see? In a discussion, you want the attention focused on what you are saying, rather than your signature! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Never mind. I am sticking with this one! It's pretty close to the default too. Regards, Field Marshal Aryan (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Verona Murphy edit

I believe your deletion of my edit was a mistake.

The page claimed that the Tanaiste had found a campaign video disturbing and reference an article in the Irish Examiner - no such claim is supported in the newspaper article. Moconnor76 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Moconnor76 The article clearly says so. let me quote it for you: "Tánaiste Simon Coveney said that what she said in her comments was wrong, and her choice of language about migrants was not acceptable." -source. Please don't remove sourced content in the future. Field Marshal Aryan (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk While the Tanaiste may have found the original comments unacceptable, he made no reference to a subsequent campaign video. Moconnor76 (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Moconnor76 Can you please revert this edit of yours. I get that you mean to say that Tanaiste didn't say about the video and want to remove that part, but in this process you are removing the fact that Tanaiste didn't approve of her entire campaign as seen in the previous source. You should change the wording to reflect that but first revert your edit or I will be forced to. Field Marshal Aryan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Beretta Stampede Edit

Hello, you recently reverted my own reversion of Beretta Stampede and gave the reason that I did not "adequately why" I removed the content I did. I am not sure what part of my message "Reverting nonsensical spam edit" was unclear. While reading the page I came upon the "Users" section and immediately found it suspicious due to its length and content. The long list of missing references (and the few that were there not generally seeming relevant) only added to this, and so I looked at the edit history and saw that the section was a recent addition by an anonymous user with no message given.

This is the original edit I was undoing. I would've used the usual "undo" link but a well-meaning (if misguided) bot and another editor doing rote syntax fixes had made two more edits to the content introduced here.

If you spend any time looking at that diff it seems to be some sort of weird spam with random keywords thrown in for its entirely missing references. Also, if you think about the actual content in context, many of the supposed "users" seem rather unlikely given the subject matter here. 2605:A601:A709:CD00:A93A:66EA:ED16:49C2 (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sig

Just curious, you changed your signature again? DTM (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, Yea. Kautilya said it was distracting/shouting. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I see. WP:SIGNATURE also gives guidelines for customizing your signature WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, including no usage of images WP:SIGIMAGE. Then again, Misplaced Pages:Signature tutorial has some signatures which have a decent amount of editing and supposedly still meet the guidelines such as the one explained on User:Wei4Green/signature. All said and done your current one serves its purpose well. DTM (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hello FMA. This edit restored the vandalism instead of removing it. I'm guessing it got caught up in other editors trying to deal with the IPs vandalism as quickly as they could but I wanted to let you know about it in case it happens again. Thanks for your vigilance and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 16:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD Very sorry. It seems to be a technical glitch because if it had reverted to the version by Zapodie (who had reverted to your version), it should have been the vandalism-free revision. Thanks for the understanding. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Gremlins can get into the editing at anytime :-) I'm glad the IP has been blocked! MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled message by HengPUngli

this man chakravarthy sulibele misleading people by his assumption lies. you guys are promoting him as Sacha, Just Go and visit his videos on Youtube --unsigned comment added by HengPUngli

@HengPUngli: Sorry I didn't get you. Can you please elaborate? Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)