User talk:Bcs09

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

INS Arihant[edit]

In response to the slow-moving edit war that you are engaged in on this article, with a distinct lack of working together to overcome the issues on the article's talk page, I have fully-protected the article, and the article will remain so until a compromise is agreed upon. Also, I will not hesitate to also protect Arihant class submarine if you begin to edit war on that article as well. -MBK004 02:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


This user sure seems to like making his way around India pages doesn't he? While most of his edits follow the rules of Wikipedia, its more than clear he is pushing his NPOV. I'm currently engaged in yet another edit war with the user on the Indian Road Network article. This drama never ends, one just has to keep a close eye on him I guess. Vedant (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I had previously reported this but no official action was taken. I'm guessing more people need to report him for any action on the matter to be taken.Vedant (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition, his "contributions" aren't really vandalism per se or disruptive as he IS following the rules of Wikipedia but a look at his edits will reveal his burning hatred for India. In addition, while he hides behind the anonymity of the internet (i.e. with respect to his off-Wiki accounts with the title By78), its very clear he is NOT a neutral editor. I have no objection to his legitimate edits but many of his edits are not neutral.Vedant (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah By78 and xingdong (they are just an small example) are spreading Chinese propaganda by deleting/distorting crucial info from articles.Funny (excruciating?) thing is that despite being warned a gazillion times by admins they are not permanently banned.It is pain to to see articles getting torn out by some propagandist lowlife again and again and..... what the hell wiki admins are doing?

PS:By78 was actually banned indefinitely for being disruptive.But Xingdong is still not banned.

Swift&silent (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Report at WT:AN[edit]

I have removed the report you made at WT:AN. That page is for discussion of the Administrators' Noticeboard itself, not for filing reports. If you would like to file a report, please do so at WP:ANI. Thank you! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Seaward Defense Boat[edit]

I could not find any source which says that the two boats were decomissioned.

Anyways all the info available is speculative anyways...

Blue Water Navies[edit]

Hi there, I see you are adding detailed information into a basic listing section, please refrain from this as it detracts from the quality of the section. If you would like to suggest changes please bring it up on the talk page and don't engage in an editing war. Thanks. G. R. Allison (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, please try and be constructive, judging by your response to my message here you don't want to engage in discussion you simply responded with your version of what I said. You must understand the previous discussion on that section opted for a basic listing, basic... detailed information does not belong in the section.G. R. Allison (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why revert?[edit]

Hi Bcs09, I reverted you for a single reason: Style. The section you edit is titled "Navies with limited blue water capabilities" and to begin it with the Indian Navy and then continue with "Several other countries maintain navies..." is the wrong order. First the generalization then the specifics. --noclador (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The navies listed are in different order. IN's power projection capability in the Indian Ocean need to be mentioned separately. Otherwise we have to add IN to the list of blue water navies, which is not supposed to happen till 2012. It's a peculiar situation.Bcs09 (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Indian Navy need to be mentioned in more detail, as it is rapidly expanding to become a full fledged Blue Water Navy. However I do not agree with putting the Indian Navy before the introducing line of the paragraph. A stylistic correct order will be:
  • Several other countries maintain navies capable of some "blue water operation": here insert 1-2 lines about the IN. followed by The Italian Navy operates 2 aircraft carriers and the Spanish Navy operates an aircraft carrier and both are capable of oceanic operations.
Whatever we do in articles, we always need to begin with the general information and then move to the details. --noclador (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I was engaged with Bcs09 in this same matter recently, I believe there should be information on the IN but it should be rather brief.G. R. Allison (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Allison - I forgot to mention that it should be brief: 1 line about the current situation and 1 line about the planned expansion and not more; as the details can all be found at the Indian Navy article itself. --noclador (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Irrelevant to your point, which I agree with by the way, Allison is my Surname, George will do just fine. Feel free to add a brief IN description if you wish. Bcs09 please contribute if you have sourcable information. Thank you I appreciate it.G. R. Allison (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notifications[edit]

Dear Bcs09, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been take care of it. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks!!! Basket of Puppies 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Indian Navy. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Vedant (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Talk:Indian Navy appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please do not use talk pages such as Great power‎ for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.

Hello Bcs09[edit]

Nano is the cheapest car in the world and The car is expected to boost the Indian economy, create entrepreneurial-opportunities across India. significance of Reva is also greater to India's economy. But only about 3,500 reva is sold out, where nano is over 35,000. I have objection about change the nano image with reva. But i am neutral in the case of rotate Nano and Reva. Let the discussion decides... Savari....Giri...Giri.... BINOY Talk 10:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


I have restored the image of the Shivalik class, the user from the IP range is a UK-based editor with a pretty apparent POV based on the fact that the has removed many India related images without providing much justification. Please see the talk page of the article for more information on that user. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear the anon is a POV-Pusher and broken record ("Indian Nationalism","Indian Nationalism","Indian Nationalism","Indian Nationalism","Indian Nationalism"). If you decide to make the change to the section, I'll support it but I have reverted to the previous version for now. Vedant (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I have restored the image of the La Fayette class and added the Horizon class to the Destroyer article. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Foxtrot class[edit]

Thanks for the ref. Reverted my edit. AshLin (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're being wikistalked...[edit] indeffed User:Yattum who reverted your edits here. Vedant (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bcs09. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 13:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hi, I noticed that you are working on several articles on the Indian Military. Your contributions are welcome, but please remember to use the Cite web template for citations. Cite web template is a citation template that makes referencing a lot easier. Look up the manual by following the link. Thanks. --Gremaldin (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

PPP (Great Powers)[edit]

"But still I don't understand why is rich Britain, downsizing the armed forces?RAF to shrink to World War One levels, MoD cuts: Loss of big boys' toys will change forces forever. It's better if Britain leaves the services intact. Otherwise it may see Britain losing it's Great power status."

This is only speculation by the media no decision has been made yet. Have to wait untill the end of the year before the UK military reforms are confirmed. This is 2010, not 1810 or 1910. State on state warfare has been dead for 50 years we live in an enlightended age of socalist ideals and world intergration. Technological reforms mean much smaller militaries! Russia, USA, Europe are all reforming smaller modern militaries. Future wars will be like afghanistan which need hightech and fast military forces with co-operation of allied nations or small poxy wars like the 1982 falklands war or the 2008 georgian war, again which need hightech and well trained military forces. Not big poorly equiped forces.

This is the age of technological warfare, not the age industrial warfare from 1914 - 1970. Big militaries dont win wars any more. Remember a nuclear submarine with cruise missiles 1,000 miles away can wipe out 1,000s of troops and all their equiptment in seconds! Just like what the UK and USA did in Iraq in 2003!

Great Power status is about economics, setting example, hard power, soft power, cultural impact, respect and leadership over other nations, powerful militaries dont = great power status, becuase if it did then why are Turkey and North Korea not great Powers? Or Italy? Italy has a more powerful military than germany! So why is Italy not a Great Power? Becuase in todays world military power means much less. Unless you are a superpower like the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will better refrain from any more discussion on the topic. But finally would like to point out certain aspects. You're correct that the reforms may take time. But it's still being reported in the media and a decision with cuts is for sure. That's what the MOD is saying. Technological reforms are a must for any military, but not necessary that they have to be maintain a smaller force. Look at China, they have no plans to downsize but is still trying to modernize. Look at the U.S. Maintains the second largest armed force in the world even though in overall capabilities they are technologically the best. True that technology can bring great devastation, just like the U.S showcased during the Iraq war. But I will have doubt if you say that U.K can do that without U.S help. U.K was a partner and not the main force attacking Iraq. But yes U.K also did contribute to the war. Turkey, NK and Italy. They are small or technologically inferior militaries(NK). Great power as you said includes Economic, political, Cultural aspects like soft power but along with that military as well.Bcs09 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Goa vote[edit]

Consider switching your Goa vote as a compromise as I did. Otherwise it will end up with "invasion..." -- currently leading at 4 votes. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Blue-water navy. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not asking for advice, want the admins to sort it out. It's a big mess. That's why it has been reported and I don't have any interest in this hanky panky stuff of edit warring. If you wish to restore articles do it. That's all.Bcs09 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


So you know, there's a MedCab case that you were mentioned in - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-12-31/Blue Water Navy. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I was planning on informing the user when the case was opened. G.R. Allison (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks against other editors in an ANI post (]), having already been warned about WP:NPA.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerenetalk 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
What else is Admin worth of, if complaints are raised. Block and silence the critics. Bcs09 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Admins can't decide content issues - only article editors can do that between themselves. Admins can however try to ensure that discussion is conducted in a collegiate atmosphere and editors are not insulted or attacked. Maybe you should read Wikipedia:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors, particularly "You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of 'suppressing information', 'censorship' or 'denying facts'" and "Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw." As other editors have advised, you really need to get to grips with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH otherwise you'll never understand what the problems were with your content suggestions. EyeSerenetalk 18:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But that never means that the others are able to provide any evidence to back their claims. Nor I find anyone blocked for being offensive, being unnecessarily offensive for no reason in those talk page. Nor I find any kind of action taken for preventing valid edits. If people cannot argue against the straightforward points being raised (setting aside their personal opinion and accusations), then what's that aritcle carrying now? Personal opinion of certain people? Are you not trying to justify these things by blocking me and letting those things stay that way, without correction?Bcs09 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Again you accuse me of Original research. There is no research by me. I am not interested in one and don't feel like doing it. Whatever has been provided from sources. Did anyone in those talk page rebute the articles with valid points and links (not personal opinion)? Then how come I am doing Original research. Is it not the other way?Bcs09 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No assuming things either using the synthesis rule like a=b=c kind of stuff. No where it's used. How you came to the conclusion that it was used. It was NOT. Even though there can be ways in which it can be used for generalization and to equate, it has NOT been used in Wikipedia by me, just because it's not valid here. Now stop the unnecessary and unwanted accusations.Bcs09 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

Per [1] and the revelation that you previously edited as indef-blocked user Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), I've blocked this account indefinitely. You are not a new user as I had assumed and are already well aware of the policies etc that you have been violating. You've had a chance to make a clean start and despite apparently starting well have slipped back into tendentiousness and POV editing. For transparency I will ask for a review of this block at ANI; you are already aware of how the {{unblock}} template works if you want to make your own representations. EyeSerenetalk 09:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This shows the block and silence policy adopted by some admins here. Nothing more than that.Bcs09 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
EyeSerene, if you cannot take criticism you better don't be in Wikipedia. Policies are not to silence critics. if this is the policy of Wikipedia, sorry I don't like to waste my time trying to improve articles that boast of things sidelining the reality. That kind of things are not good for a free Wikipedia, nor is it going to serve any purpose. Shame shame. :).Bcs09 (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy must be revised, no other go[edit]

For the policy makers of Wikipedia, I would like to point out many lacunae in Wikipedia. Even though the policies must have evolved over a period of time, it still lacks the capability to be free and fair. The restrictive tendencies are increasing and now represent a dictatorial regime. When even discusssions are not allowed, then where is Wikipedia heading to. The amount of power restored on Admins is too much. They can misused it with impunity. Can block anyone at any time because he feels like that. There is no valid reason needed to be provided to block a person. If the admins feel something or belives so he can block the person. This is a grave error and a kind of misuse of power. Like the Mutaween. This kind of a power need to removed from the Admins and they must be made responsible. Even the Admin recall policy don't work since it's like complaining to the police about a policeman. A relook and a total change in the policies are required so that people are atleast allowed to voice their opinon on various matters and must be in a position to discuss and citicize things openly without the fear of being blocked unncessarily. Look at my own indefinite block. It says for disruptive editing. To which article is disruptive editing made. What stupid judgement from the Admin. And has he been punished, for massive misuse of power. No. The first time, I went with a complaint to sort it out. But then also i was pushed aside provoked and blocked. Like a person going to a police station getting beaten up and then jailed for saying police is unjust. Now the second indefinite block for asking for "a discussion on removal of Britain as a great power". What is wikipedia. roftl. Need to change policies for sure. Else it's going to be worse than Pakistan where judges parents get shot dead for opposing religious fanatics. Bcs09 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"It says for disruptive editing. To which article is disruptive editing made." Bcs09, I think any user who has worked with you over the last few weeks could answer that pretty quickly. Policies relevant to this situation have been explained countless times, you still clearly haven't read them. G.R. Allison (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Allison, it is either that or he has deliberately chosen to pretend to have not read it and then he continues to ignore them thinking that we are blind to his editorial pattern. That's the rub. Whichever way it is, his banging of the wall here on Wikipedia is not something fresh, countless cases has happened before and excerpts of such can be followed here. Frankly, Bcs09 just has to understand that Wikipedia is an online world community-based project and he is no one man army to be going around name-callings and expect no sanctions to be impose on him for his disruptive editing pattern, for if you hurt the community in any way, whether or not he is purposely taunting a SysOp (IMO, a trusted editor with more tools to do his job than us), vandalizing a page or deliberately ignoring editing guidelines (such as NPOV), it would all result in him placing himself on the chopping board, no if and no buts about it. Moreover, this is his second account here (Jimbo explicitly forbid this but Bcs09 has had his shot at a second chance and he still blew it, is it our fault?) and his editing pattern hasn't changed one bit from his first account (User:Chanakyathegreat) which was blocked for the same disruptive behaviour. If he changes for the good, excellent! But if he carries on with his nonsense, he has to go... and good riddance! Out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Arihant follow-on submarine for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arihant follow-on submarine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arihant follow-on submarine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)