User talk:Nirvana888

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello please leave a message and I will try to get back to you either on this talk page or on your talk page. Cheers!


Hello Nirvana888,

I know we've had our share of differences in the past but I figured we could co-operate on something. I was just reading through the BRIC article and I noticed a minor issue and since you are a fairly active editor on the article I figured I'd ask you first. The article mentions a follow up report to the 2003 report being published in 2004. I visited the link for the citation but I did not find a report but rather a link to a Goldman Sachs website in Chinese. I did some more digging through and found that a follow up report was actually published in 2005 (see [1]). Is there a missing report here or am I getting something wrong?

Thanks, Vedant (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's understandable. I do think the section needs to be updated more specifically regarding the roles the BRICs have played in stimulating the global economy and also how the growth forecasts for the BRICs have changed/been updated. The website I posted above ( also has a video interview with Jim O'Neil (Head of Global Economic Research at GS) about the upcoming challenges facing some of the BRICs as well as steps they can take to combat them. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time as of late to read the articles but I'll try to add a few sections. Vedant (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

FAS estimates[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to note that I agree with your most recent edit to List of states with nuclear weapons under the reasoning that the numbers released by the Pentagon are specious since they do not include retired warheads or warheads awaiting dismantlement.

Nonetheless, there is a more recent source from FAS which estimates the number at 9,613.[2] The source concedes that the number may be "a little less given ongoing dismantlement of retired warheads." I think we are definitely in agreement, I just thought it might make sense to use a more recent source. On the other hand, it might be easiest to just keep the one source since it aggregates the data and stays fairly recent.

Thanks,-- (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference of 13 is unimportant since it isn't meant to be more than an estimate anyways. I think the article is much better including the retired and yet to be dismantled warheads. Thanks,-- (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

List of states with nuclear weapons[edit]

First reason i reverted your edit is because you reverted it on the basis of a discussion. But you never started a discussion on the articles talk page. why? Secondly the table dosent actualy seperate strategic and non-strategic nuclear wepons! I'm sure your aware of the difference, however now with a more detailed list any reader is able to look at USAs arsenal and see that it has 500 non-strategic wepons capable of being used along side conventional forces. Recon.Army (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The current source used to cite the number of nuclear wepons by countries has a detailed table showing the number and class of nuclear wepons each country has. I simply re did the list to suite wikipedia giving readers a more detailed account of a nations nuclear arsenal. Its not a big problem, there is no need to revert it. Recon.Army (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a major change, nor does it qualify as one. Wikipedia encourages editors to be Wikipedia:Bold and make major edits, however even my edit to the list doesn’t come under Wikipedias category of being bold. I added detail, but it seams you have a problem with it. Recon.Army (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I certainly do not discourage being bold and I actually think you made your edit in good faith. I was just sharing my views with your new table. Please see the talk page at the article for further discussion. Wikipedia suggest that one should try to reach a consensus before making new changes to an article if their are dissenting views. Again, I do appreciate your new contributions and would be happy to discuss this further on the article talk page. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

STOP Undoing non acedamic sources on Superpowers[edit]

You are being warned and a report is being filed against for disrupting the articles. Undoing will get you blocked as I am warning you to knock it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss your concerns. You have been reverted by multiple editors and may be blocked if you continue to edit war. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
NO you have. You are somehow in an disagreement to use any articles for countries of China and Russia. You seemed to be anti on these sources as non acedamic sources can be used; can you not read before undoing? I don't think you have read the Adminstrators comments. There are millions of non acedamic sources used allover Wikipedia, are you going to say to everybody not to use non acedamic articles. I can almost open any topic on any article and there are non acedamic articles used everywhere. Your argument to not use them does not make sense. I am questioning what is your real intend here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well first of all, I am not anti-China and Russia as you are suggesting. I have no issue with using sources that discuss these two countries. My problem is with including many unreliable sources that you seem to be pushing like Google video and Imageshack which are wholly unreliable. Plus, my point is that there are already a few references for Russia and there is no need for a litany of five or six sources. Do you see my point here? Nirvana888 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually you have already broke the 3rr rule as your history verifies it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not - 3RR means reverting more than three times within 24 hours which you were about to do. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well you have done it more in 48 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, no I haven't - I have no reverted more than 3 times even in the past 48 hrs but you have. In any case, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. If you want to add the Guardian source that's fine with me since there are no sources for China. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

These articles were on Superpowers and Potential superpower for more than 4 months and Google video was over a year, no one person disputed them at all, it happened when I added the Guardian source, you decided to erase them just like that. I have even written any content, I have applied only sources but the China superpower article you also don't like either. There is 11 non academic articles on the Superpowers page and over 14 on the Potential superpower page, should I erase them out too? Would you like that? Second I have read comments on the superpower discussions page from editors not to use Youtube and I second it but not everything. Google was agreed on and I have the discussions link to show you that many agreed on, the video is CNN, not Google. Google is a video host not the channel. Same with Imageshack, it is not the editors source it is host the image of the article as is a news service for paid members only like the Associated Press does. Third Netanyahu meeting is Russian and Israel transcripts from both governments, notice

These were listed since 2010 below- Netanyahu calls Russia an important Superpower Voice of America News editor by Robert Berger Feb. 15, 2010

Transcript: Russia a Superpower in every Aspect - Feb. 16, 2010

"Netanyahu: Russia is an important "superpower"; Feb. 16, 2010

Was listed for over a year below-- Russia is a Superpower CNN, US Senators telling the truth CNN News August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read above for the rational you have conveniently decided not to address. You see to be really interested in these sources in particular that mention the word superpower and Russia. Netanyahu mentioning the word superpower and Russia does not make Russia a superpower (which is not one) in the IR world. The most reliable sources are IR literature that directly discuss the concept of superpower. I actually would prefer if we try to only use reliable, academic sources which describe states as superpower and am aware there are several media sources that are not exactly that reliable that should be replaced if possible with more reliable sources. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If Obama says the US is a superpower, do you believe it or is Obama not qaulified to say such a thing? If yes then who is Natanyhu, Chavez, Senators John Kerry, Carl Levin and John Cornyn to say the samething vice versa as they all have admitted Russia and China? If you asked a Wal-Mart employee if China is a superpower and you ask a Congressman or US Senator Mr so and so if China is a superpower, who are you going to take who's word for it? First you seem to use and repeat Frank Zakaria and only Frank Zakaria as if he is the only guy in the world is says what country is a superpower or not. Now if Frank Zakaria says the US is a superpower and if Obama said it wasn't in case he did, who's word is the public going to take for it? Obama or Zakaria? Is Zakaria elected by the public to work for CNN? I mean he is a news anchor whichs makes him a journalist but did you know according to FCC rules the media can lie to the public but it forbids it but if a elected official makes a lie it is illegal but not if they admit if it was a mistake?

Tell me does this article below qualifies the US is a superpower because of Obama says so? Obama: America a Superpower 'Whether We Like It or Not' Published April 15, 2010

Obama and His Administration Lament America’s Superpower Status April 15, 2010

Academic sources from acknowledged experts are the most credible and hold the most sway. Thus, Obama making a one-liner about the U.S. being a superpower in a speech is not as reliable as an acknowledged expert like Zakaria other individuals with similar expertise which describe why the U.S. is a superpower. If you have fine such sources that describe Russia or China as a potential or even current superpower, I would be happy to consider them. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian POV pushing[edit]

I thought you might be interested to know there has been a recent rise in Indian nationalist users pushing POV on India related articles and anti-China and anti-Pakistan sentiment on many other articles over the past couple of months or so. Many are adding original research and Indian nationalist POV to articles and some appear to be pushing the fallacious notion that India is a great power or even a superpower. Articles worth taking a look at to see this recent rise in Indian jingoism are India, Indian Air Force, Indian Navy, Fighter Aircraft, Indian Armed Forces, Arjun (tank), HAL Tejas, Arihant class submarine, Frigate, Ballistic Missile Submarine, BrahMos, Nuclear Submarine, Cruise Missile, Destroyer, Main battle tank, Blue water navy and Defence Research and Development Organisation. One of the most problematic users is user:Bcs09, who is a sock of banned user:Chanakyathegreat, who was renowned and banned for his disruptive POV pushing. Bcs09 regularly adds original research which is POV and Indian nationalism to many of the articles I listed above and to many other India related articles. Bcs09 also regularly edits behind a changing IP within the range which is located in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. Bcs09 is greatly supported by user:Vedant, another Indian POV pusher, only milder and not so stupid as Bcs09. I believe Bcs09 is only able to propagate his Indian POV across Wikipedia because his edits are protected by Vedant. Vedant has a nasty habit of trying to get those who oppose Bcs09 banned, like he did to user:By78 amongst others. I hope you find this information useful in helping to combat the rise in Indian POV pushing. Valaroo (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am intimately informed on the sock in question and his tendentious and disruptive history. That said, I do not have a particular interest or indeed particular knowledge on the India-related topics you list. It may be best if you try to seek consensus and try to refactor material that you find POV. since you may be a new user, please read Wikipedia's policy on POV. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Perhaps you can find someone who is more knowledgeable on these topics. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Nirvana, just so you know this user is a sockpuppet of banned user Yattum. I won't get into the reasons as to why he's banned or why I doubt his good faith (see his SPI case if you want to know) but I happen to agree with you that Chanakyathegreat was a disruption. That said, I was actually here to tell you that I agree with your approach to India (that informal groupings like the G4 shouldn't be mentioned). Should this ever come down to a discussion on the talk page, I shall provide my 2 cents worth. Vedant (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks for letting me know, Vedant. I usually do keep an eye open for ostensibly new editors who leave me a message, which is why while assuming good faith, I did question whether he might be a sock. Yes, I was just referring to Chanakyathegreat given his disruptive and edit-warring history. Hopefully this has stopped. But again thanks for your informing me and your support, and I will keep an eye on this sock. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Please let me know if you find any obvious signs that you've stumbled across a sock for Yattum.Vedant (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Blue Water Navy[edit]

Hi there Nirvana888, we could use your help over at the Blue water navy talk page. The situation appears to be esclating and I feel the opinion of an experienced editor would be valuable.

The situation is this; the user Bcs09 objects to this edit,

(Original text) "The United Kingdom has recently retired the Harrier jets that fly from the nations aircraft carriers, leaving the Royal Navy without a carrier strike capability."

(New text) "The United Kingdom has recently retired the Harrier jets that fly from the nations aircraft carriers, temporarily leaving the Royal Navy without a carrier strike capability".

I have included temporarily to signify that the abandoning of carrier strike is not a permanent strategy for the Royal Navy and that they intend to re-generate that capability in the coming decade. I believe this information to be important.

Any input or opinion you can offer to the discussion linked to (also to the status of the RN as a BW navy) will be immensely valuable, thanks for your time. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


Hey Nirvana! I would like to request your assistance in a newly created article recently linked to the Potential superpowers-page - India as a rising superpower. In my opinion, the article should be deleted on the grounds that we already have an article on India's superpower-status and that the article, India as a rising superpower, is full of SYN and OR, but all I ask is that you take a look and give your two cents about it. Also check the discussion page for more.Swedish pirate (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)