Talk:List of active Indian military aircraft

message: Following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, which ended in consensus but for one participant, I have removed the images from the tables, for better readability, especially on small screens. Jan olieslagers (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images removed 

message: The Sea Harrier has been retired. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/naval-aviation/2016/03/21/indian-navy-retires-sea-harriers/82070296/
My update to this effect was reverted by a user who has been banned as a sockpuppet. With nothing more than "not yet"
Not sure how to handle this. Planning to undo the revert in couple of days. 
Barath s (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Harrier retirement 

message: A new page List of active Indian military aircraft with photos has been created.
The only difference is they contain images of active military aircraft.
This was done as certain users known as UY Scuti(Mystery Intelligence GUY) and Antiochus the great(Name Shows Inflated EGO) are repeatedly removing images citing Consensus.
They are ignoring or not knowing this same development had happened 3 months back and the administrator had asked for reason to have two pages 1 with photos and another without photos.
To cut affair short the,
Reply to every one is that
1) Wikipedia is about Knowledge.
2) A picture is worth 1000 words(More Knowledge).
Hence the administrators had merged both pages while retaining images,
Overlooking argument of consensus,Hence the Admin had kept the page Locked for some months.
The consensus for removing image was on point that the images were difficult to download on smart phones not that the images did not contribute to page with  knowledge,
This guys should ideally buy better capacity smart phones or upgrade to 3G, 4G or visit the pages via laptop computer.
They decided to remove images instead.
Now this guys are treating same consensus as gospel truth by removing images and accusing me of disruptive edits.
If this is allowed to continue they will make Wikipedia a Bible, Torah, Geeta, Kuran.
But to avoid conflict I am starting the above said page with images users please do contribute to new page but without removing images  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh D Churi (talk • contribs) 07:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide links which show the whole trail of changes that you claim, nobody else will go rooting through the page histories on the off chance of finding them. For example the article on List of active Indian military aircraft with images was created only two days ago, not several months as you suggest. Please also read the guidelines at WP:AVILIST and, if you wish to differ from it, create an appropriate discussion to establish consensus before making your changes. Finally, I should offer a friendly warning that your abusive comments against other editors breach the WP:CIVIL policy and if you persist then you risk sanctions being applied. Thank you for working within our community and not against it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

text: WARNING No, you need to stop edit warring against multiple editors and start responding actively to our concerns. An admin has had to protect the article to stop you breaching our house rules and to try and persuade you to engage in real dialogue. If you persist in your disruptive behaviour after the protection is lifted, you will risk sanctions being imposed on you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

text: No wriggle room, you are jut plain abusive. You attack me personally and swear at me. It's not even as if this were in hot blood, you have had days to cool down. I have reported you at WP:ANI and asked that they undo your disruption to the article at the same time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page with photos 

message: Please add Dassault Rafale fighters, which India have ordered recently. 36 fighters are on order. Please include it. Abhishek Das Chnd (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 7 December 2016 

message: Proposal to update the numbers of the multi-role MiG-29K planes currently active with the Indian Navy from "39" to "41". Reference is here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: —MBlaze Lightning T 12:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 17 December 2016 

message: The total number of Tejas ordered is 123 and not 103.
Here are the citation links 
code|https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-delhi-signs-off-on-83-tejas-fighters-431301/
Im making the required changes. someone please add the citation links as im not familiar with the procedure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.186.43 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total number of LCA Tejas ordered 

message: Reference: World Air Forces 2017. Found original here. Archived here. 
Thanks. 14.139.38.11 (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page Needs Heavy Updating 

message: The list currently shows 400+ Mi-8 helicopters in service. But we have media reports that the Indian Air Force has phased the "entire fleet" of Mi-8's today. References here (,,). It is difficult to believe that the IAF would retire 400 helicopters in one day or even one year. I did a bit a background check and it seems multiple IAF squadrons operate Mi-8's including No. 105 Helicopter Unit, IAF, No. 107 Helicopter Unit, IAF, No. 110 Helicopter Unit, IAF, No. 112 Helicopter Unit, IAF, No. 118 Helicopter Unit, IAF. The media reports state that the ceremony is happening  at Yelahanka Air Force Station and No. 112 Helicopter Unit, IAF but not others. This leads to two questions: (1) Can we safely remove the Mi-8's from here with this references (assuming we had the 400 number wrong all along) and (2) Can we also now remove them from the other IAF squadrons. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The table also shows 400+ Mi-17 helicopters. The reason is that some of the previous older squadrons of Mi-8 were already replaced by Mi-17 helicopters. But not much information was given when that happened. So it is estimated that the total number of both Mi-8 and Mi-17 collectively is 400+ (as Mi-17 is based on Mi-8 they have the same role and almost same specs). So my guess is that no. 112 HU is the last squadron of IAF with Mi-8 helicopters and rest of the squadrons, previously had Mi-8s, but are now operating Mi-17s. References to back it up: (1. 112 HU is last squadron, rest were already phased out), (2. IAF has replaced the Mi-8 with new inductions in the same category such as the Mi-17).  (1) Yes we can now remove Mi-8 from here (we have reference for that). (2) We don't have any information about other squadrons. Sarvatra (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

text: The 400 number was definitely wrong all along. If the known number of Mi-17s delivered (151) is subtracted from the total number of Mi-8 + Mi-17 in service (259) from FlightGlobal's World Air Forces 2017, we get a maximum of 108 Mi-8s in service. Gazoth (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. I have a confirmation from PIB as well that there are not more Mi-8's in service with IAF. We can now safely remove this. I am not sure about the number of Mi-17 but we can use other existing sources for this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Mi-8 from the list 

message: Should we include aircraft types that have been ordered, but are not yet in service like Rafale, Ka-226 and HAL LCH? I don't think we should include them as non-inducted aircraft cannot possibly be counted as active and the definition in the lead agrees with me.  disagrees with the justification that WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS allows operators that have ordered a type be listed on its article. What do you think? Gazoth (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the aircraft whose contract has been signed, that is they are confirmed to join the service, should be included, like Rafale, HAL LCH, Apache, Chinook etc. But those aircraft which are supposed/speculated to join Indian military, regardless of how strong their chance of joining is, should not be included here. This includes Ka-226, HTT-40 and the Guardian drones. Sarvatra (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

text: The lead can be edited to state aircraft in service and under procurement. We can also add a color legend to the table which states that these aircraft are under procurement or on order. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with  that pretty much sums it up, and adding color just makes an unnecessary mess when simply text works just fine -  FOX 52 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Since the consensus is to include only orders that have reached contract signature, I'll remove HAL LCH too along with HTT-40 and Ka-226. The order for 15 limited series production LCH is at RFP stage, rest are just commitments. Gazoth (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of aircraft types not yet in service 

message: , discuss your changes here instead of trying to enforce a particular version of the page from December. You have removed well-sourced information multiple times in the past few months on this article and yet seem to comfortable ignoring sourcing requirements when it seems to suit you. The Jane's article says that Searcher and Heron UAVs are operated by all three services, while the numbers from SIPRI are for India in total with no break-up given for each service. How exactly are you attributing the complete number to IAF? —Gazoth (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not to cite the same material over & over again per WP:OVERCITE, further you have removed current reliable source(s) and replaced with out dated one's and presumed differnces in numbers are due to losses - you are not in a position to make that judgment. I have given a lot of leeway for a newbie here on Wikipedia, but you are still expected to collaborate with others. - FOX 52 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You still did not answer how you attributed the entire UAV numbers to IAF. FlightGlobal's WAF, being a tertiary source can be overridden by reliable secondary sources like Jane's. The numbers are not outdated (in comparison to WAF) as there have been no Jaguar procurements since 2015. As for your other edits, you have reverted other editors' changes over the past few months twice ( and ). For example, you have removed 's additions on order for a single C-17, 86.132.7.26's change to correct RAIT to RIAT, a number of editors' changes to the pictures listed beside the tables and a number of edits of my own on capitalization, Tejas numbers, variant information among others. You seem to have started with a version of page from December, included the edits that you liked from the current page and replaced the page with your own version. That is not collaboration. You have to discuss specific changes here instead of sneaking them through when there is obviously no consensus on those changes. —Gazoth (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  In your rash decision to revert what I inputted on the page you managed eliminate the rest of the subheadings “Transports” “Helicopters” etc. & reinstate a few errors ei IAI Harop is not considered an “attack” asset but a loitering munition under the Type section.  Speaking of which (Type section) we do not need to capitalize those, as far as notes that can go either way. In short there is no need for a separate table for the UAV's, if the numbers are an issue then will leave them out. or make a notation in the "Notes" section - FOX 52 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was your choice to sneak in your preferred version of the page among other changes. It is not my responsibility to hunt down the small good parts of a largely bad edit and restore it partially. I have no problems with changing the type of IAI Harop from "Attack" to "Loitering munition". As for capitalization of types, the long standing consensus on this page has been to capitalize it. You should have discussed the change here first, especially since I had edited your changes in December to re-introduce capitalization. Same goes for UAVs too, discuss your changes here, obtain consensus and then make the change. —Gazoth (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK first off I didn't try and sneak my preferred version so DO NOT accuse of such. - And since you seem to be unwilling to compromise, I'll take care of all the bad edits myself FOX 52 (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you explain removal sourced number for 6 Tejas, changing ordered number to 123 when 83 are still at RFP stage, changing variant names of Jaguars from India-specific IB/IS/IM to the generic T/S/M, removal of "incudeonly" tags for proper transclusion into "Indian Air Force" page, removal of 1 extra Dhruv ordered by Navy, removal of 1 C-17 ordered by IAF, changing of order of images, removal of MiG-29UPG, Netra, 737-700, Do 228-201 and Mk. 42B/C (all sourced) from the variants table? All of these changes made in the past few months were removed without any justification or mention in the edit summary. I had assumed good faith until you chose to do it again and then posted an inflammatory notice on my talk page. I can't think of any explanation for such actions unless you were trying to sneak in your preferred version. If all of this was just an honest mistake and it was not your intention to remove sourced information, I apologize for assuming that you were acting in bad faith. —Gazoth (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

text: , I'm fully willing to compromise if the consensus goes your way, but you have to seek it first before making controversial changes. —Gazoth (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have a copy on my computer of the original page, so some unintended changes were brought on by that fact.  And right now the only consensus is between you and me - so you have a look at it and see what compromise can be made. - FOX 52 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporation of UAVs into the main tables 

message: Hi Gazoth, I think there is a confusion on the number of these aircraft in service. This page says 233 while the Sukhoi Su-30MKI page states 249 based on this reference. I believe it was you who updated the number to 249 on that page based on 272-23 (using WP:CALC in this reference ). I don't have a strong preference on either numbers but we should have this consistent. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The 249 number is the total number of Su-30MKIs produced. It doesn't tell us how many have been delivered and how many of them are still in service i.e. not lost in accidents. —Gazoth (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   I understand and I agree with the point you have raised. Maybe insert a syntactical comment across that number. I assume some of these IPs see the number 249 there and come running here to update this number. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   I have added a HTML comment. Feel free to modify the wording as you see fit. —Gazoth (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. You have done some great work in the last few months to improve the Indian military articles in general. Especially from sourcing them with better sources and removing WP:SPS. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Su30-MKI numbers 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: Global 5000 is an variant of Bombardier Global Express which is a Canadian company therefore, origin should be replaced as Canada instead of United States in Indian Air Force column, sub-column Reconnaissance. Mtkhan1989 (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global 5000 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Can anyone confirm with proper reliable source, is it the same IAI Heron version added in the table or some other version. Drat8sub (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAI Eitan 

message: Total number of mig-21s are approx 113 not 54 The Enthusiastt (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020 

message: Some people are making unnecessary changes to the number of aircrafts continuously. Requesting to lock the page from such edits. Darkphantom007 (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock the page 

message: "change multirole to omnirole in Rafale section" 112.133.245.128 (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: "Multirole" is the common name, "omnirole" is just what Dassault calls it. Volteer1 (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021 

message: Number planes should be reduced to 107 Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you a reliable source for 107? MilborneOne (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  mig 21 bison crashed 

message: One Mig 21 bison crashed in May 2021 Siddheshsawant.360 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another MiG-21 bison crashed in May2021 

message: People are making unnecessary changes to the number of aircraft. Please correct those numbers. Ruk469 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Numbers 

message: Please correct it again. Ruk469 (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Numbers 

message: Someone named FOX 52 is spreading misinformation!!! Ruk469 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTICE 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: BN-2 retired long ago, page need to be updated 117.203.86.140 (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  BN-2 retired 

message: Greetings,
Let's come to the point 
1.Platform name on this list
You claims that platform name should be added as this - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft&diff=1043928730&oldid=1043928467
My opposition to that is
# Indian Air Force is buying Netra/DRDO AWACS not Embraer EMB-145 or Airbus A321 -right? so is it correct to add A321 or EMB??
# Indigenous AWACS system is called DRDO AWACS or Netra, as the new system is based on a different platform it should be called as Netra Mk2 but that doesn't change the platform - ie DRDO AEW&CS so it could be much better if it is added as 
DRDO AWACS - India -AEWCS -Netra mk1/2 -number -on note we can mention that it is based on EMB or A321
What do you think? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2021 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: One aircraft crashed yesterday, killing a general. His name was Bipin Rawat. Can the list be updated?49.178.80.27 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source for the total Mi-17 now in the fleet ? MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

text: No, but there's a reliable source which states that the helicopter crashed.49.178.80.27 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. However, military aircraft crashes are beyond the purview of this article. From what I understand, this article is merely a list of aircrafts in the Indian military (and not crashes). Thus, the only change that should be made IMHO is that the number of Mi-17 helicopters in the army be updated (when a reliable source is available). --ShellPandey (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crash 

message: Su 30 mki shows 260 number and linked article says 272. Same story for mig29 article says 69 2607:FEA8:4DC0:4510:907D:74AC:FE49:DF80 (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures should match the references or a new reference/citation is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect numbers 

message: For all the those "Edit Warriors" who don't understand the edits made by me - I will commence the tedious task of doing each one line by line..to help those who are baffled by the concepts of Reliable sourcing, WP: Image(s), Notability, and any other Policies pertaining to this page.- And for any disputes, you can now note the specific issues as opposed to a blanket revert - FOX 52 talk! 06:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line by Line 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The fleet is divided between HAL Cheetah, HAL Cheetal and HAL Lancer. - license-built version of the SA 315B Lama Maitrey Telang (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022 

message: Sukhoi Su-30 122.172.188.158 (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Tejas mk1 40, su30 mki 260 2607:FEA8:4DDF:A120:2D72:B8BB:F7B:3B5C (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 32 Tejas Mk 1 and 1 Tejas trainers are delivered as of 25th Nov 2023. 17 trainers and 73 Mk 1As are on order. Deliveries will begin in Feb-March period in 2024. Aviator Jr (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tejas mk1 and su30 mki numbers inaccurate 

message: 272 total number 12 attrition losses. Makes it 260 2607:FEA8:4DDF:A120:FC4B:4D54:9D93:DC86 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumki numbers wrong 

message: Numbers of double seater fighter jet's(conversion trainers) should be added in 'combat aircraft' column,like other countries aircrafts pages.. also Dual seater versions can perform all combat roles, Dl ff (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion trainers/Dual seater versions  

message: Came to notice that User:FOX 52 is deliberately removing Tejas image trying to enforce feelings as Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia don't have any rules that states that only Admin checked and confirmed images can be used. If anyone has any reason to believe that the image is sourced from copyrighted place they can ask the image be removed though proper process. Not vandalize page deliberately wanting to remove Tejas image. If you play such shoddy games, and vandalize pages you be warned that you will be reported. Mifiin (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: removing image(s) with questionable copyright status is not vandalism - an image with "" means that it may not be free to use.  Removing It is the responsible thing to do.  Further  you've been warned before not to attack other editors , - FOX 52 talk! 05:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is vandalism. It is not only an irresponsible thing to do but goes against Wiki rules. You are not supposed to remove anything without valid reason. Your argument that "has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid" is a very shoddy way to tell that you did not like the image of Tejas being added and hence you removed it. It is administrators job to ensure that the images added are validated. Now they are so overwhelmed with their job that they could not keep up validating images. So at least the likes of you if you really meant to contribute to Wikipedia must make an effort to check it whether it is indeed from Government of India source. Just because Admins did not do their job did not give you a license to manipulate and vandalize pages. Please keep that in mind. Mifiin (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "goes against Wiki rules"? really what rule(s) are those -No this is vandalism "is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines - Thank you FOX 52 talk! 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the file's page, it says that it was taken by the government of India, and it was posted on an official Indian government X account.  Do you have reason to believe that it was not, in fact, taken by the government of India?   The copyright status has yet to be reviewed by an admin on Commons, so it is best to remove the image until it can be determined that the copyright status is valid. - ZLEA T\C 20:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed Govt of India account. The account itself has this to say #OfficialAccount of #PublicRelationsOfficer, Palam (New Delhi), #MinistryOfDefence. Fox is unnecessarily and deliberately trying to get rid of the image. Now your statement that its better to remove until its copyright is determined is untenable because, do you know how many years it takes the Admins to have a look at it? How much is the backlog for them? So until they could get the work done, we should go with agreeing to vandalism and whims and fancies of the likes of Fox? Commonsense dictate that we check whether its from Government of India site and then continue using it. Aint it? Mifiin (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberately vandalising page by removing Tejas image.