BlackFlanker

Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please use civility when leaving note(s) on an edit summary. When an IP applies edits stating "Retired. Absolutely!" and amount of times this article has been vandalized, that notation is to alert other editors to be on the look out for more attempts of disruptive editing. So you do not need to come at me with "You're the one who is vandalising the article." Other items that were changed, was reducing over linking titles ei: jet trainer per WP:OLINK, and we don't note things like "scheduled to be delivered in 2017 and 2018" this is an encyclopedia, not a new blog - Please be courteous you fellow editors - Thank You - FOX 52 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello FOX 52. I'm aware that this edit "Retired. Absolutely!" wasn't likely appropriate, I even removed it by myself after reverting your edit but what I was pointing out with the edit summary note I used was that you're constantly deleting parts of the list that has no reason to be deleted. For example, when there is every aircraft title linked only once in the list then why it should be redundant? I understand that use of too many hyperlinks is prohibited according to Wikipedia rules but this rule wasn't violated in this case. I mean that there are several transport or utility titles in the list but only one of them is linked.

Additional informations in the notes colum are included almost in every list of Air Forces, especially when you look at these ones List of active United States military aircraft , List of active Indian military aircraft and it seems that no one really cares whether it looks like "a new blog" or not, then why use of few simple sentences in other lists that moreover just better explain already mentioned notes, for example the "2 on order", should bother someone? Ultimately, if something is already included in the notes column, some short sentences, I think is better to keep it grammatically correct i.e. keep using caps and dots.

Btw, Slovak MiG-29s weren't all upgraded in the same year (2008) that was just the year when they were transferred back to Slovak Air Force after modernization that was approved in 2004.^[1][2] And 3 missiles of the Slovak S-300PMU were fired during exercise in Bulgaria in 2015 as I informed you before, so there are currently 45 missiles and not 48. Informations about this event can be found here but you will need to translate it. BlackFlanker (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

If there is an example of something that shouldn't be used in one article, is not a reason to use it in another (article). We don't mention future date(s) as those events can change due to unseen factors. Regarding linking such items like "jet trainers" is an obvious title, and the linked aircraft name also allows the reader see more about what the aircrafts role is. Some captions like utility for helicopters is a good one to have linked though. - Keep up the good work FOX 52 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Bearing in mind that the number and condition of Russian warplanes is a military secret, it is surprising that you want to give a number and base it on a source, simply because all these supposed sources only make approximate calculations, which are also usually 2-3 outdated years and sometimes more In the case of new aircraft, the figure can be approximated to the reality because it is official how many are bought and is published in the budget of expenses of the state But in the case of new aircraft that are getting out of service, the numbers that are given are totally wrong , Every year there are fewer and fewer "Soviet" aircraft in service

Where is it that there are almost 200 Su-27 in service in the RuAF? Really 200 ?? in November of 2017 ?? The source they give is from 2014, and it is also a Western "think tank" that has scant credibility, they only copy the work of others and they do it badly I do not know if anyone noticed that every squadron of Su-35 that enters service, withdraws another from Su-27 Also in 2015, under the new reform of the armed forces, several squads of Su-27 and MiG-31 were transferred to the Navy, so they are counting them in duplicate You will tell me where there are 200 aircraft in service if there are only 7 squads of Su-27 in the AF (counting the acrobatics team) and one sq. in the Navy (kaliningrad) still incomplete , and the number wrote here gets magically 18 !! Today there are no more than 120 Su-27 in service , including 60 modernized and 20-25 UB`s

With the case of the Su-24 the same thing happens, each new squad of Su-34 is a squad less than Su-24
275 Su-24 in the RuAF ?? there are 4 or 5 squads of Su-24M/M2 and 4 sq. of Su-24MR Also Monchegorsk was transferred to the Navy that now has 4 squadrons (48) not the number that give here

In the case of Su-30SM , even even this is wrong The bmpd source is wrong to count, missing two airplanes deployed in the summer of 2016, probably was on vacation and did not find out. I wrote to him on his blog, but he does not seem to know how to count Better look at the number of aircraft manufactured to date in this other source, which is where bmpd copy his information http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/5040-su-30-istoriya-serii/ To de date 104 handed over: 78 RuAF , 20 Ru-Navy and 6 Kazakhstan

About the MiG-31 , the number contracted for the RuAF for modernization is 113 (counting 2 for replace lost and other to repair one brokendown) It would be easy to find a source that talks about the two contacts for the modernization of the Mig-31BM, one of 60 in 2011 and another of 53 in 2015 The objective is to have 9 squads of Mig-31 in the RuAF, exactly 110 planes (once Monchegorsk was transferred to the navy), of which there are about 90 modernized and less than 20 without modernizing that will be modernized this year The figure of 135 can be given if you count the 25 that the Navy has (2 squadrons, Monche and Yelivzovo), you count them twice
I took the work to look for the photos of all these planes, which show the real number that is active (at the most) If you are interested you can find them here http://foro.rkka.es/index.php?topic=13960.msg152732#msg152732 The number is objective, not one of those assumptions that you give in the propaganda publications of the armament / aeronautics lobby If you find more pictures of aircraft in service in 2017, please tell me which ones

The russianplanes.net listings are quite reliable, but the data that is offered with the total in flight at the bottom of the page are not updated Did anyone bother to know if it really is in the assets that that page gives as "in flight"? Many are for scrap, however others mentioned as "in reserve" are already in flight. It is easy to look at its photos to know For example, there are only 10 A-50 in flight, 10 An-124, 18 Il-78, etc ...

Best regards --AMCXXL (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware of that it is hard to find out exact number of aircraft that were produced in such high numbers, for example like the Su-24 or Su-27, but to keep the credibility of the page, those numbers should be based at least on estimates provided by some reliable sources such as websites, journals, etc. which take informations from for example government sources such as Ministry of Defence.

I reverted some of your edits because there was simply nothing what would prove the numbers you put into the list.

The informations about the numbers differs by source, for example the Russian wikipedia states there is 179 Su-24M/M2/MR in service with Russian Air Force and another 53 with Russian Naval Aviation, what makes 232 aircraft in total, not such far away from 275 what the World Air Forces 2017 estimated. This would makes a sense if you consider the supplies of new Su-34s are like ~15 aircraft per year. To this day there is 99 serial Su-34s what is not a sufficient number to withdraw most of the Su-24s from service and therefore the Su-24 will be likely the main composition of Russian Air Force yet after the 2020.

About the Su-27, World Air Forces 2017 estimated there is 370 Su-27/30/35 in service with Russian Air Force, so when you count out 116 (number of Su-30SM/M2) and 64 (Su-35S) you will get 190, almost the same number as the bmpd.livejournal estimated. Though the International Institute for Strategic Studies (The Military Balance 2017 p.-217) estimated the number to 121 for Russian Air Force and 18 for Naval Aviation what would match with estimate of your source, we would probably need to have more informations to make definitive conclusion about this.

Additional to the modernized MiG-31BMs/BSMs there are several dozens aircraft of B/BS/DZ variants that remaining in service as well what would explain the estimate about ~135 aircraft in service with RuAF and another ~32 with Russian Naval Aviation. Even your source claims there are 98 modernized and 56 not modernized MiG-31s = 154 in total.

As for the two missing Su-30SMs, if you know their hull numbers and have a reliable source about their delivery to RuAF, then it won't be any problem to count them into the list.

You are right about the number of A-50s and Il-78s in service, seems they didn't update the info on russianplanes.net long time, but there is 11 An-124 in service as of 2017.

BlackFlanker (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

"in first tome but to keep the credibility of the page, those numbers should be based at least on estimates provided by some reliable sources such as websites, journals"
But the question is: A joirnalist or a magazine, even specialized in aviation, is a realiable source? Where does he got the figures? What methodology? Are they updated to the current moment, in full restructuring of the RuAF? Of course not , none journalist or magacine has taken the job of count the airplanes one by one , look for serial numbers, registration and photographs. They usually copy the work of others and copy it badly, probably because they do not know how to interpret it
The better sites to get information are the forum airforce.ru and the web of photos russianplanes.net with its listings of airplanes with thousend of data , page in fact managed by the same persons of the forum airforce.ru . I also take part in this forum , helping to find photos , videos and registration numbers of the airplanes. I am also part of the spanish project RKKA.es (Red Army of Workers and Peasants) with some information of the URSS and Rusia , and in its forum I am recopilating and editing all the data about the modern RuAF airplanes and VKS structure from airforce.ru , russianplanes.net , bmpd , eagle-rost , etc....

I started writing in the wiki of my country because it was forgotten for 10 years regarding the Russian armed forces, and I see that in the English version there is the same problem. The wiki page of the RuAF has an ORBAT of almost 10 years ago.
Allow me to give you an idea for the English wiki: First add another section with the current structure of the VKS, the one that appears is already part of the history of the VVS.
Once you know the current structure and how many squadrons are active, you can get an idea of how many planes operate, at most, the RuAF.
Another idea is to compile the information of each type of plane on the specific page of each type of plane. In the other case, you will need 500 references or many more to justify all the digits on the page:" List of active Russian military aircraft" , and more and more each time you add more planes.
Finally, a methodology is also needed to determine which aircraft is "active" or "in the structure", "in reserve", "decommissioned" (administrative situations), which is not the same as "in flight" or "combat ready". For example, russianplanes.net count as "на хранении" (in storage) the planes that are in a periodic maintenance in the ARZ (repair plant). Then never they count the total force of a regiment , of 24 or more airplanes at least one or two are always in planned maintenance

About the specific numbers I wrote , probably were vandalized , I see this problem also in the wiki of my country , every week the page is vandalized .
Anyway I can give my point of wiew:
Of course there are objetive information about new airplanes, since contracts with a specific number of purchases are published in the state budget report
In the case of planes of Soviet origin, things change, and every year there are fewer and fewer in service , and there is no official objective source:

Su-24: The figure of 275 aircraft is outdated (I understand that added M / M2 and MR) and probably includes the Navy (25). The military reforms of the 2000s closed the regiments (8) of Siverskoye-Leningrad, Smuravevo-Gdov, Shatalovo, Lebyazhe, Primorsko-Akhtarsk, Vozhayevka, Verino-Pereyaslavka, and Bada. Dzhida transferred to Chelyabisnk, and also graduated from regiment to squadron Marinovka and Varfolomeyevka. On the contrary Voronezh, Morozovsk and Khurba added one squadron, leaving the total of VVS squadrons in 17 (12 M and 5 MR - about 200 aircraft), the same as Su-34 are expected. If you take that reference of 275 from 10 years ago and subtract the 100 Su-34 received you have left the 170 Su-24M/M2/MR that Russia currently operates (120 RuAF in 5 Su-24M squadrons as much (+Lipestk?) and 4 Su-24MR sqdns., and 50 the Navy in 4 sqdns). You should also keep in mind that the current 50 Su-24 of Navy will be replaced by Su-30SM.
Probably those "reliable sources" are out of date because they forget to subtract the Su-24 replaced by Su-34 By the way, congratulations with the correct number of Su-34, in other sites add the prototypes, which do not form part of the structure of the VVS (They do not have "BBC РОССИЯ" in the tail ) and that all less 2 were withdrawn

Su-27: The figures of near 200 Su-27 are from before receiving the Su-35. Larger figures are earlier. Warfare.ru gave 340 Su-27, 260 Mig-29 and 280 Mig-31 in the year 2003-4 and it was already outdated, besides that at that time the VVS almost did not fly. Possibly they counted that number of airplanes with the images of satellite when the half of airplanes was simply parked
"the International Institute for Strategic Studies (The Military Balance 2017 p.-217) estimated the number to 121 for Russian Air Force and 18 for Naval Aviation"
Of course , this data was taken of the russian wikipedia , just before it was vandalized once and again last spring. This numbers probably written by one member of the forum airforce.ru for 2017 (14 Su-27SM3 , 47 Su-27SM , 50 Su-27P and 10-Su-27UB = 121) , and "one squadron" in the Navy , taken as the standard 18 in the West.
If you think "International Institute for Strategic Studies" (The Military Balance 2017) it is a "realiable source" then take that number and that reference.
About 190 Su-27 of several years ago , less 68 Su-35 for this year are about 120 Su-27 in the VVS. As I said before there are only 7 equivalent-squadrons in the VVS -2 Belbek, "1,5" Krymsk , "1,5" Khotilovo , 1 Besovets , 1 Kubinka- (and other sqdn. of Su-27UB for training at Kuschevskaya)
In fact there are 14 Su-27SM3 , 47 Su-27SM (counting all , even those that we have no notice for years) , some less than 40 Su-27P and some more of 20 Su-27UB.
In the navy there are only 10 Su-27P and 3 Su-27UB in Kaliningrad, but probably the regiment will be restored once Chkalovsk is reopened. If you take the numbers of a complete squadron (spected) , then you have 15 (12-+3UB´s)
If you count all "Flankers" Su-27/30/33/35 both VVS and Navy, you will have about 340 at the end of 2017 , the same quantity gave for warfare.ru 12-13 years ago.
"World Air Forces" is a general wiew of all world but in Russia is not a "realiable sorce" while not explaining the methodology to count them. RuAF does not operate about 370 Flankers (12 regiments) since the PVO and the VVS were separated, before 1997
In my opinion the only "realiable source" about soviet Su-27 is http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/3582-su-27-istoriya-serii/ , but you will need take the job for search one by one the planes of current regiments. I did it and I invite you to see my compilation, much more understandable than in Cyrillic and with links to photography in the tail numbers: http://foro.rkka.es/index.php?topic=13960.msg152730#msg152730

MiG-31: 113 MiG-31BM have been contracted for the VVS,110 are for 4 complete regiments (96), one training squadron -Savaslayka- (12) and 2 planes in Akhtubinsk (and 3 for replace crashes-breakdowns).This is an objective fact and you can look for a source as bmpd to justify the number
The MiG-31BM´s from Monchegorsk (Now in the Navy), transferred in 2011 from Kotlas-Savattia, they were modernized before the contract of 60 at the end of 2011.
Now there are 98 MiG-31BM (excuding prototypes), 84 in the VVS (2 Akhtubisnk, 13 Savasleyka, 19 Khotilovo, 22 Kansk, 22 Vladivostok, 6 Perm) and 14 in Monchegorsk (Navy). Older models in active there are about 18 in Perm that will be replaced in next months, and 12-14 in Yelizovo (Navy).
All the old MiG-31s ​​in the other bases no longer fly (Khotilovo since 2013, Vladivostok since 2016), so you have to eliminate them from the count.
Indeed in the general count I put 6 BS-DZ planes from Vladivostok recently repaired in 2014-5 and about 20 planes in Yelizovo that are parked for years without using, they are old versions that are not even modernized. However, in the list of aircrafts, I did not included them. I have counted near 130 Navy included , that will be about 135 in total when VVS gets the 110 MiG-31BM expected

About the two "lost Su-30SM by bmpd" , the better source is http://forums.airforce.ru/matchast/5040-su-30-istoriya-serii/ . The planes are:
"10MK5 1311 : Nº50 red , First fly 21-04-2016 , photo: https://russianplanes.net/images/to196000/195973.jpg , put in 23 IAP?"
"10MK5 1312 : Nº51 red , First fly 23-04-2106 , photo: https://russianplanes.net/images/to197000/196148.jpg , saw since the beginning of 2017 in 23 IAP , got the number 51 blue" (a clue to belonging to 22 IAP-Vladivostok- ,as "two seater" of the Su-35S sqdn.) saw this year several times in photos & videos in 23 IAP(Dzemgi) during drills and the Air Force Day
Photo with Nº51 blue tail number at Dzemgi Air Force Day 12-august-2017: http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/matchast/80378d1502670023-p1270961.jpg/
another form a video during drills http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/matchast/77354d1488471258-51-1-.jpg/
The planes went from Irkutsk to Vladivostok without intermediate stopovers at civil airports , probably on summer 2016 vacation , and therefore no photos were recorded, as is the case with the Su-30SM going to the West that are photographed in Tolmachevo-Novosibirsk and reported inmediately in forums and blogs

I agree with you that the current number of An-124-100 in the structure of VVS is 11.However the methodology of russianplanes.net counts as "in storage/in reserve" the planes in periodic maintenance because are not "in flight" (летает). One An-124-100 is now at Aviastar on its planned maintenance/update , is for that the number of 10 in that web, but the airplane will retrun to service for 2018.
In the case of A-50 , they give the number of 11 (and other AWACS Il-976 are also in service in Chkalovsky , totalling 12 AWACS). However if you check all the A-50 there are only 10 flying (and also the Il-976)

ABout the number for all the IL-76 variants , the number given is 151. If you subtract 33 (20 Il-78 , 11 A-50 , 1 Il-976 and 1 IL-76VPK/Il-82) you get the figure of 118 Il-76 in service: (1-GLITs , 4-223 LO , 15-224 LO , 75-BTA and 23-"other" BBC).This included 2 Il-476/Il-76MD-90A and 1 Il-76MD-M still in trials
223 LO and 224 LO are part of RuAF. 223 LO based in Chkalovsky and 224 LO with HQ in Migalovo-Tver , but with about 4 planes in each base (Tver,Pskov,Orenburg,Taganrog). https://russianplanes.net/airline/224_LO https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/224_%D0%BB%D1%91%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4
You also can see the emblem of 224 LO in the majority of An-124 , despite since 2015-16 are outdated
I have checked the all the Il-76 and the total number I got , including planes in maintenance/repairs are about 125. (104 +16 of 224 LO + 4 of 223 LO +1 GLITs)
If you think that the list of russianplanes.net is a "reliable source" , the number of Il-76 are higher that en-wikipedia shows

I can copy these arguments in the page of discursión of "Active airplanes of RuAF" and give more information if that helps to update the Russian aviation project. You can choose the information you consider useful. I am going to work on the Russian project of the wikipedia of my country this winter.

Best regards --AMCXXL (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The sources provided are misleading and have no relation to the content. Unless you provide reliable sources for the content, it will be removed. Sources from social media accounts & blogs (ex: livejournal) are not considered reliable sources, for more info read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Further discussions shall be held in the talk page. - AHMED XIV (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's no reason why I should be blocked because all the content I add in Wikipedia is always sourced by well known and reliable sources. As for the content about the export of the 9K720 Iskander to one of the North African countries, it was confirmed by two realiable sources, by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti that got the information from official representatives of the Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation during the Dubai Air Show 2017 exhibition; this was even confirmed by the Jane's Information Group in its article. The mention about the delivery to Algeria was brought by a well known Russian journal that publishes its material "under the auspices of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (AST Center), a Russian research organization dedicated to studying the issues of the defense industry and military-technical cooperation, founded in 1997. It publishes both the messages of the ACT Center and the messages of the authors, who have been actively cooperating with the AST Center for other projects for a long time." - original citation as the bmpd.livejournal stated about itself. Furthermore, a publication about the delivery appeared also in the Algerian DSI Magazine, published in September 2017.

Your acting in this way contravenes to WP:ATWV when you're blaming me for vandalism which in this case obviously didn't occur and was caused just by your own ignorance/misinterpreting of the facts I provided to my edits. Therefore, this also contravenes to WP:VERIFY when you're removing any sourced and verified content. Also, try to stick more to WP:GOODFAITH when considering to revert someone's edit; describing your changes in the edit summary.

The content you removed will be added again since as per the WP:SOURCES it doesn't violate any of the rules.

BlackFlanker (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

No sir, the source provided, about Algeria being a user, is misleading and definitely not reliable.

LiveJournal is a Russian social networking service where users can keep a blog, journal or diary, it is a Blog hosting site. Per WP:USERGENERATED, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums,...".

The blogger "bmpd" contributes the information to some sort of Facebook account, where he states: "Algerian user Hammer Head on his Facebook.com page reported that Algeria had purchased four Iskander-E tactical missile systems". Per WP:RSSELF, Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media.

Your edits on the page are more of a Disruptive editing which is not always intentional, but the repeated changing of the content beyond all recognition, without any regard to verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

Before citing any sources, You should read them carefully and make sure that the information is based on reliable, published sources, like an official confirmation or announcement, not from blog articles and social media tweets.

- AHMED XIV (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're getting it wrong all the time, not even trying to understand what kind of source was provided, whether the source publishes just author's personal opinions or claims based on obvious facts. I'm not talking about the LiveJournal in generaly but about the blog bmpd.livejournal.com that publishes its material in accordance to the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (AST Center), what is a Russian research organization dedicated to studying the issues of the defense industry and military-technical cooperation, founded in 1997. The employees of this organization are active publishers of most of the content on the bmpd blog and therefore this blog is not a subject of the WP:USERGENERATED or WP:RSSELF. Once again, the bmpd.livejournal.com is not a personal page acting like a self-published news site.

As per the WP:RELIABLE you could also notice there is an exception for some kind of blogs, where the bmpd.livejournal belongs. "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

In the case about the 9K720 Iskander for Algeria, the bmpd.livejournal.com cited the Algerian user Hammer Head because he shared a post about the delivery of the Iskander-E missile system published by the Algerian DSI Magazine. It can be found here. Therefore, this claim wasn't based on claims of the user Hammer Head nor on claims of the bmpd blog itself, but on claims of previously mentioned DSI Magazine.

Be aware of what you're doing because your behaviour already fill some characteristics of disruptive editing as per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS such as the tendentious editing and ignoring the consensus-building with your repeated disregarding other editors' explanations for their edits what may lead in restrictions from administrators if you will continue in doing it.

If something on some Wikipedia' page seems doubtful to you, as per the WP:DISPUTE you can try to discuss about the issue with other Wikipedians at a talk page of the certain Wikipedia' page instead of starting a edit war with continuous and disruptive removing/reverting sourced content without even let other, more experienced Wikipedians express their opinions what could help resolve a certain issue more effectively.

BlackFlanker (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

AHMADXIX Is A Troller to Algerian, He Won't Agered with this.Mr.Strat Starky (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advanceDragnadh (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beaufort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey BlackFlanker, I know I may be asking a bit too much but since you're knowledgeable with Russian aircraft, can you improve on the Mikoyan MiG-35 article? I added a cockpit and armament section to the article to reflect some of the good articles on military aircraft such as the Sukhoi Su-57 and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, but those sections, along with other sections under the Design heading need expansion. In addition, the article needs to clarify if the MiG-35 and the MiG-29M and its variants are different from each other or that the MiG-35 is another name for the MiG-29M, as readers may be confused on why an article about the MiG-35 is suddenly talking about its predecessors, the MiG-29M. I appreciate your devoted work on Russian aircraft in Wikipedia and I hope that the MiG-35 receives the same attention as well. Have a good day! - Josephua (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Josephua, thanks for asking. Yes I can, actually I was already considering this, so once I'm done with my other edits, I can try to search for some additional sources for further expansion of content in the article. Certainly, the MiG-35 and MiG-29M/M2 are not the same aircraft, but they have a lot of in common since the M/M2 and also K/KUB (both Cold War era projects) were used as baseline fighters for further development that evolved into the most advanced variant, known as MiG-35 today. BlackFlanker (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tupolev PAK DA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stealth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I like to inform you that Yasen class submarines are really attack submarines (SSNs) with multipurpose capability to carry cruise missiles and not guided-missiles submarines (SSGNs)

Main reason is electronic equipment/armament developed primarily to fight with enemy submarines and ships same as their whole design is concepted for that. You can see same at US fleet where Virginia class or Improved Los Angeles class are classified as SSNs and not SSGNs. Difference is really huge

Reason why I wrote you: I will revert all your good-meaned changes at affected articles and I like to explain you that --Hornet24 (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Do not add information not mentioned by individual sources by using multiple source and push to imply something not stating by sources, that is called WP:SYNTH, thank you. diff:[1] 176.88.138.193 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please mention a source is partisan while using partisan sources, thank you. diff:[2] 176.88.138.193 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. However, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Please do not use Twitter as a source on Wikipedia, Twitter is not considered a WP:RS diff:[3] 176.88.138.193 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm 176.88.143.228. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. , please avoid the word claim per WP:CLAIM. Diff:[4] 176.88.143.228 (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey. I don't think there was anything wrong with my recent edit, the world "claim" perfectly fit into the context as it is still just Turkish claiming it has destroyed the Syrian Pantsir-S1, and was not confirmed by the Syrian side or anyone else. Moreover, judging just by the design differences of the transport vehicle seen on the supposed Turkish video footage, it is clear the system do not likely belong to the Syrian Armed Forces and thus, there may be some disagreements between editors. Also, if you feel there is something wrong with the content in the article, additional verifications are always welcome. BlackFlanker (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Please avoid the word claim per WP:CLAIM. Please use the same word treatment for all sides. Diff:[5] 176.88.143.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello BlackFlanker, I agree with your edits made on the article. Just here to tell you that evasive IP is blocked and if he return to disrupt contact admins, you can see all his past accounts and behaviuor at my User Page.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr.User200, thank you for your support. Apparently, the sockpuppetism is a serious thing here on Wikipedia when it comes to politics. BlackFlanker (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is another attempt to push fake video of Pantsir being destroyed by Turks in Syria. It originates from Turkish propaganda Twitter account https://twitter.com/clashreport, just like the first video. Any help is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justfixin (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited S-400 missile system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Klimovo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I think you may be interested in this conversation I have started in the village pump. Would appreciate if you would add your viewpoint to the discussion. [[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.81.234 (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

TylerBurden (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kh-59, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stealth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply