User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

hope this helps explain. you can see for me to show you all the pictures with the serial number on tail planes, and then all the google earth location, then the forums which some are quite reliable when cross referencing, adding to scramble to verify the location, and if it exists, then from google earth number of hangers, then you add cctv footage from them taking off from base. it is more reliable then most if not all western sources. cause many times in whatever publication I can find so many errors. such as 2011 article from military anaylsis saying china had nothing simular to the arleigh burke destroyer, which is false cause PLAN has Type 052C, then he said that PLAN has no AESA in service, but the KJ-2000 & KJ-200 are using AESA. I tend to ignore analysis that view in a negative way, and ignoring physical proof.

counting and compiling JH-7A tail numbers there are well over 70 as claimed in the referenced.

below is a pretty good compilation i found online.

Shenyang

1st Division, 1st Regiment, J-11B & Su-27UBK (24 Aircrafts) 30th Division, 89th Regiment, J-11 (24 Aircrafts) 1st Division, 2nd Regiment, J-10A/S (28 Aircrafts) 11th Division, 31st Regiment, JH-7A (24 Aircrafts) 1st Division, 3rd Regiment, J-8F (24 Aircrafts) 30th Division, 90th Regiment, J-7D & J-8E (24 Aircrafts) 20th Division, 58th Regiment, Q-5 (24 Aircrafts) 21st Division, 63rd Regiment, J-7 (28 Aircrafts) 30th Division, 88th Regiment. J-7 (28 Aircrafts) 21st Division, 62nd Regiment, J-8F/H (24 Aircrafts) 11th Division, 33rd Regiment, Q-5D (24 Aircrafts) 21st Division, 61st Regiment, J-7E (24 Aircrafts)

Beijing

24th Division, 72nd Regiment, J-10A/S (28 Aircrafts) 7th Division, 19th Regiment, Su-27SK/UBK & J-11 (24 Aircrafts) 15th Division, 43rd Regiment, J-7C/D (28 Aircrafts) 15th Divison, 45th Regiment, Q-5/J (24 Aircrafts) 7th Division, 20th Regiment, J-7G (28 Aircrafts) 24th Division, 70th Regiment, J-8E (24 Aircrafts)

Jinan

19th Division, 55th Regiment, Su-27SK/UBK & J-11 (24 Aircrafts) 5th Division, 14th Regiment, JH-7A (24 Su-27SK/UBK & J-11 (24 Aircrafts) 19th Division, 56th Regiment, J-11/BS (24 Aircrafts) 12th Division, 36th Regiment, J-7II (28 Aircrafts) 5th Division, 13th Regiment, Q-5 (24 Aircrafts) 31st Division, 91st Regiment, J-7E (28 Aircrafts) 12th Division, 34th Regiment, J-7G (28 Aircrafts) 12th Division, 35th Regiment, J-8B (24 Aircrafts)

Guangzhou

18th Division, 54th Regiment, Su-30MKK (19 Aircrafts) 2nd Division, 5th Regiment, J-10A/S (28 Aircrafts) 9th Division, 26th Regiment, J-10A/S (28 Aircrafts) 2nd Division, 6th Regiment, Su-27 & J-11 (24 Aircrafts) 42nd Division. 124th Regiment, J-7H (28 Aircrafts) 18th Division, 52nd Regiment, J-7II(28 Aircrafts) 9th Division, 27th Regiment, J-8D (24 Aircrafts) 2nd Division, 4th Regiment, J-7II(28 Aircrafts) 42nd Division, 125th Regiment, J-7H (28 Aircrafts) 35th Division, 103rd Regiment, J-7II (28 Aircrafts) 9th Division, 25th Regiment, J-7E (28 Aircrafts)

Nanjing

3rd Division, 8th Regiment, J-10A/S (28 Aircrafts) 28th Division, 83rd Regiment, JH-7A & Q-5 (24 Aircrafts) 14th Division, 40th Regiment, J-11 & Su-27UBK (24 Aircrafts) 29th Division, 85th Regiment, Su-30MKK (19 Aircrafts) 29th Division, 86th Regiment, J-11 (24 Aircrafts) 3rd Division, 9th Regiment, Su-30MKK (19 Aircrafts) 28th Division, 82nd Regiment, Q-5D/E/J (24 Aircrafts) 28th Division, 84th Regiment, Q-5 (24 Aircrafts) 14th Division, 41st Regiment, J-7E (28 Aircrafts) 3rd Division, 7th Regiment, J-7E (28 Aircrafts) 14th Division, 42nd Regiment, J-7E (28 Aircrafts) 29th Division, 87th Regiment, J-8H (24 Aircrafts)

Chengdu

33rd Division, 98th Regiment, Su-27SK/UBK & J-11 (24 Aircrafts) 44th Division, 131st Regiment, J-10A/S (24 Aircrafts) 33rd Division, 97th Regiment, J-7II (28 Aircrafts) 44th Division, 130th Regiment, J-7H (28 Aircrafts) 37th Division, 109th Regiment, J-8F (24 Aircrafts) 37th Division, 111st Regiment, J-7G & J-11BS (24 Aircrafts) 6th Division, 17th Regiment, J-11B/BS (24 Aircrafts) 37th Division, 110th Regiment, J-7E (28 Aircrafts)

FTTC

Su-30MKK (19 Aircrafts) J-10 (14 Aircrafts)

North Sea Fleet

7th Division, 20th Regiment, JH-7A (24 Aircrafts) 5th Division, 14th Regiment, JH-7A (24 Aircrafts)

East Sea Fleet

4th Division, 12th Regiment, J-10AH/SH, (28 Aircrafts) 4th Division, 10th Regiment, Su-30MK2, (24 Aircrafts) 6th Division, 16th Regiment, JH-7, (24 Aircrafts) 6th Division, 17th Regiment, JH-7, (24 Aircrafts)

South Sea Fleet

8th Division, 22nd Regiment, J-11BH, (24 Aircrafts) 9th Division, 27th Regiment, JH-7A (24 Aircrafts)

JH-7 Quantity: 194 (5 PLANAF Regiments, 3 PLAAF Regiments)

J-10 Quantity: 210 (1 PLANAF Regiments, 6 PLAAF Regiments, 14 Aircrafts at FTTC)

J-11 & Su-27 Quantity: 312 (1 PLANAF Regiments, 12 PLAAF Regiments)

Su-30 Quantity: 100 (1 PLANAF Regiments, 3 PLAAF Regiments, 19 Aircrafts at FTTC)

J-8 Quantity: 216 (2 PLANAF Regiments, 7 PLAAF Regiments)

J-7 Quantity: 616 (1 PLANAF Regiments, 21 PLAAF Regiments)

Q-5 Quantity: 144 (6 PLAAF Regiments) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralstance (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richelieu class battleship

When you thought that the material for the Richelieu class battleship was copied from that for the Dunquerque class battleship, this was only true for it before copyediting. Note that Richelieu class battleship doesn't have a copyedit tag (any more), unlike Dunquerque class battleship. I suggest, if you wish the material to be in the Dunquerque article instead of the Richelieu article, to copy it there from the Richelieu article. Allens (talk | contribs) 00:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to French battleship Dunkerque, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Shriram (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fort Pulaski

Thanks for the assist at Battle of Fort Pulaski. The overall presentation is remarkably cleaner looking. Following your general guidelines, (a) 'small' and (b) 'center' coding is removed from captions, except for my hold out on portraits. (c) Captions are limited to two lines on my browser to limit gallery 'push down'. (d) Two pics in a four-frame gallery are deleted to limit 'push down' into text. (e) Caption wording now eliminates apostrophes and abbreviations, I think.

However on printing it, the forced breaks in two-line captions show as three and four lines. More to learn. Thanks again for your encouragement. Could you take another look to see if the most egregious misalignment is addressed? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22 Wing/Canadian Forces Base North Bay

Thank you for your remarks. The page is being rewritten and edited by the Wing Heritage Office of this base because the many folks who wrote the material before we (22 Wing/CFB North Bay) got to it either had never been to the air base and/or showed they hadn't the slightest knowledge of the base.

In terms of the page's extent, because we are responsible for the air sovereignty of the entire country of Canada and of the North American continent in concert with the United States we regularly have considerable interest shown in our base and its history (particularly our NORAD Underground Complex). Good example is a visit in the early 1960s by Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia -- how often does an African emperor take time to visit a Northern Ontario air force base? And last year the filming of a motion picture on our base, starring Laurence Fishburne and Bill Paxton. Due to this large, avid interest, and because there is no other public page where we can reach the public as well as Wikipedia, we have set the goal of having a thorough, correct history on the page.

As well, unlike fighter bases, bomber bases, etc., whose mandate is straightforward and readily understandable by the public, air defence and aerospace defence are more esoteric and require a bit more explanation. Example, integral to air defence is Ground Controlled Interception or "GCI", an air force term; a brief explanation of what GCI is helps readers understand what we do at North Bay.

Photographs will accompany the page shortly, by the way, many never having been seen by the public. These will break up the current masses of text, and add an attractive graphic note to the page.

All of this said, the page's final edition is not expected to be much longer than its current state.

Thanks again22WHERO (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ivan Rogov-class landing ship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for several admins for edit warring and removing sourced contents !

Since talking to you is of no use, I have decided to take this to the admins. You have no rights to determine if a source is reliable or not !!

Be gone ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This behaviour seems to have continued. I will also report. Mr. Not Funny Nickname (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STOP YOUR Revert War !!!

I am here to start a Revert WAR with you if that is what you want !! Stop removing sourced content and adding your own god damn opinion. You can add materials but STOP removing sourced content. I have already reported you to admins and any more of your revert will be considered edit war and you will be BANNED from wikepedia for good !!.

BTW, NO ONE Cares about your own damn personal opinions !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply adding sourced information is inadequate. Information must come from reliable sources. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the relevant Wikipedia policies on sourcing. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You call your source reliable source and other people's unreliable ?? PROVE IT FIRST !!!

The sources I have are all Chinese sources from official Chinese news media and backed up with latest pictures !!

Your source is a single source coming and is an American source !! Which is more accurate and reliable regarding Chinese military hardware?

NOW STOP YOUR GOD DAMN Editing warring !!

As I said, you can add materials but stop removing sourced content. NOBODY cares about your worthless opinions !!

If you want to contribute positively to Chinese military sections you are welcome to do so but first respect other contributors.

Your sources are blogs written by non-experts, which explicitly goes against WP:BLOGS. In addition, bare images are not reliable sources. An image needs to be interpreted by an expert to be usable. Using a bare image as a source violates WP:ORIGINAL, since the wiki editor will be the one doing the interpreting.

Again, familiarize yourself with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________________________

RovingPersonalityConstruct, I have just added official Chinese sources backing up with pictures for the JL-2, 093, and J-20 articles. Now please stop removing sourced content. You can add materials and trim the articles but please stop removing sourced content, as you can see now. The sources are all official Chinese news agencies and backed up with pictures. One of them even used US Department of Defense.

Thank you.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

RovingPersonalityConstruct, now with many relaiable Chinese and western sources added. I hope that you stop this. Thank you.

I do not mean to offend you but just to keep it straight.

Peace out.

________________________________________________________

BTW, the source you provided for the 093 article is actually a Wikipedia page which goes against the rules of using source. You can not use a Wikipedia page. Also, the wiki page you used as source direct to the US Department of Defense page and it DOES NOT have anything related to the 093 at ALL !!!

Anyway, just to point out. Here is your so called "reliable source" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense

Thank you and have a nice day.

Peace out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refs that looks like <ref>[[United States Department of Defense]] (2014: 8)</ref> refer to items in the Bibliography section, and are perfectly valid. That particular ref refers to the Annual Report To Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2014, which was properly listed in the Bibliography section.

Looking through the refs you've added:

http://mil.sohu.com/20140916/n404363632.shtml seems useful for technical specs. I will add that when I revise my version of the article. http://www.guancha.cn/Science/2013_04_02_135879.shtml is no good; it says the figure of five Type 093s in service comes from foreign (non-Chinese) sources. Since it doesn't say who those sources are, the US DoD figure is still a better choice. Both articles also don't seem to say anything about units planned, etc..

tiananmenstremendousachievement.blogspot.com and http://aviationintel.com/ fall under WP:BLOGS; don't use them. The http://theaviationist.com/ article is inappropriately used; it does not actually say what the wiki article is claiming. The Liveleak video does not have expert commentary, so is not a reliable source. The wantchinatimes.com article, written by a "staff reporter" is apparently just regurgitating stuff from another site, so it doesn't seem useful. http://news.ifeng.com/ may have some value.

On the whole, your sources are haphazardly included. Your sources certainly do not justify using the old version of the Type 093 article. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 22:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still have the gut to say that your source is reliable?? It is another Wikipedia page for United States Department of Defense ! I will KEEP FIGHTING YOU UNTIL THE END. Bring it ON !

http://www.guancha.cn/Science/2013_04_02_135879.shtml is a Chinese source and hence more reliable than your source!

As I pointed out in my previous response, the reference you object to refers to an item in the Bibliography section. This form of referencing is used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Familiarize yourself with these practices. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not address the evidence presented but instead insist on reverting. This is not a valuable contribution. Mr. Not Funny Nickname (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Type 093 submarine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for restoring your version after expiration of a WP:3RR block at Type 093 submarine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection and deletes

Hi, I semi-protected your talk page for two weeks because of the persistent personal attacks. If you want it to be shorter or longer, please let me know. I can also rev/delete the offensive posts. Please let me know if you wish me to do so. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 10 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the YJ-12 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Type 056 corvette. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Type 093 submarine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Pokechu22 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry by Tamlinwah and Shulinjiang

No administrator has addressed the SPI I made. Do you know what to do in a case like this? I'm hoping there's a better way than just messaging admins after admins on their talk pages. Also, I'm planning to launch another SPI here because of a user named Peter O'Conner. Judging by the behaviour, it's definitely Tamlinwah and his other sock puppet was banned indefinitely. Khazar (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I've tried has produced a long-term effect. The only way to stop the editor is to get the pages protected, otherwise the editor just makes the same edits over and over again. I haven't tried

I'm waiting a bit until filing another WP:ANI, since it would probably not do for me to file another so soon (you found my first one), but I'm confident another favourable - if temporary - resolution can be had on the grounds of continued Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. From the first ANI, I can show I tried using other WP content-dispute resolution measures (which failed due to lack of interest), and that the editor makes more use of talk pages now but avoids addressing other editor's points.

But I suspect with two hefty ANIs worth of evidence it will be easier to go to WP:RFPP and have immediately-affected pages semi-protected, which may be the best we can do until the SPI is looked into.

I also suspect that User:Peter O'Conner and User:Tamlinwah are the same editor. I was actually thinking of filing an ANI for Peter O'Conner (still constantly adding unsourced and/or poorly sourced info), but an SPI would make making an ANI case easier. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody requested administrative action to the SPI so the resolution might arrive within a week or so. Unfortunately, it might just be a bunch of blocks rather than permenant page protections from IP addresses. As for Peter O'Conner, I will launch an SPI soon and inform you when it's made. Feel free to add any more evidence that I might overlook when making it. Khazar (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New IP address on the Type 99 tank

There's a new IP address on the Type 99 tank article and he appears to be adding what looks like biased and possibly unreliable sources to the article to back up content he/she has added. Is it possible to give your inquiries about it? Khazar (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "give your inquiries about it".

The editor has also popped up using Special:Contributions/2602:306:B8BF:C0:31F3:A780:D607:D158 (which is a within an IP range used before.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Khazar Sockpuppet?

Seriously, I have my doubt it's a coincidence you both show up at the same time and vandalize many articles related to Chinese defense topics, your "sources" are a complete joke and yet you 2 keep seeing fit to delete any sources that you disagree with no matter how much more reliable they are then your sources such as that Awful RAAF fanpage that's Geocities quality.

Requesting a ban on both of you either way on both topics, you've ruined them with so much false information they'll practically have to be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.140.161 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to ONI

RovingPersonalityConstruct, since you said that ONI is the most reliable and credible source. You openly said that it is superior to other source. According to that source on page 26: ""The more advanced 094 Jin class SSBN will carry the new JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile with a range of 4000 miles or 7400 kilometers and carries 3 to 4 MIRV warhead. The JL-2 SLBM has an increased range over the Xia'sJL-l SLBM and is capable of reaching the continental United States from Chinese littorals. The Jin SSBN with theJL-2 SLBM gives the PLA Navy its first credible second-strike nuclear capability."

It clearly said that it is capable of reaching continental USA while sailing only along Chinese coast (Chinese littorals), mean while you used another source saying that it can not and you also add several BS such as it can reach India which everyone knows.

Since you are proved wrong with your own source. I decided to remove the other unreliable source. I also added some other changes such as the exact wording. You keep using your own exaggerated wording to push your agenda and propaganda through. This is not acceptable ! Because the source clearly said: "Nuclear deterrence patrols will likely commence this year". I added 2015 to clear things.

I also moved the ONI's report regarding 094's noise to a new section under noise because it is more appropriate that way, also adding its actual noise level using other source. I suggest you not to remove them unless you can come up with actual more reliable source.

Thank you.

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Source for Type 056 article edit

The official website news in Chinese (I think you don't understand). So, if you understand Chinese and you will, you can add reference by yourself. Thanks ! 222.208.100.148 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese sub sources

Hi. I would advise that the sources used be checked out fully via community input at the WP:RS noticeboard. I myself have had some issues with claims made about Russian missile systems, (The S-400 I seem to recall it was). It may seem pedantic, but it gives an authoritative outcome. Effectively I agree with your concerns, but using the talkpage I suspect will attract POV pushers. Go to the main R/S board is my advice. lets keep the article stable until we can get a board consensus, which will carry far more weight. Regards Irondome (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RovingPersonalityConstruct. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, RovingPersonalityConstruct. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited YJ-82, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mach (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) 09:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, RovingPersonalityConstruct. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation format on Indian Ocean

Please be so good as to change all of your colons in the citations that you've added to this article to commas to match the existing format as per WP:CITEVAR.

Thank you, but please put a space between "p." and the page number.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is for Harbin Y-12 edit you made earlier this month

You know, every editor can contribute. However, when it comes to correcting something that is FIRST written by an user, you should not be too picky. You can improve those edits made by previous ones, but not delete the whole progress and rewrite as the same information but the different style. I understand stylish and whatever is needed for perfectness, you can add a link to the text, but not delete all. This article is what I 've found, you shouldn't used it as your contributions activities. Besides, my text is 9/10 correct, you just rewrote it for contribution earning... ItalicAlso mind the copyrights policy Hypersonic man11^Talk

This was my thought process. I read the original article text:

On August 4 2020, a Kenya Air Force Harbin Y-12-II suffered an accident at Dhobley Airstrip in Somalia while delivering supplies to U.N. Amisom forces, 10 people on board survived but the aircraft was badly damage.

I saw "Kenya Air Force" and suspected it might by copy-and-pasted from the source (my first thought is that it should be "Kenyan Air Force".) I then read the source article, and in the first paragraph found:

A Kenya Air Force Harbin Y-12-II suffered an accident at Dhobley Airstrip in Somalia. There were no serious injuries to the 10 people on board but the aircraft was seriously damaged. The landing gear as well as the left-hand wing have collapsed.

So it was copied. Then I thought that this might be borderline WP:PLAGIARISM if there really was no other way to put it (what were you saying about copyright policy again?) Then I realized that "suffered an accident" is very vague; there are many types of aircraft accidents. Fortunately, the article title indicates that the accident was a crash. Reading the source article a bit more, it also said that the crash occurred after take off, a detail that which I thought might be useful to add.

At this point, something like this was probably going through my head:

On August 4 2020, a Kenyan Air Force Harbin Y-12-II crashed after taking off at Dhobley Airstrip in Somalia while delivering supplies to U.N. Amisom forces...

Next, I looked at "delivering supplies to U.N. Amisom forces". As it turns out, this too was copied from the second paragraph of the article.

The accident happened after the aircraft had taken off from Dhobley Airstrip after delivering supplies to U.N. Amisom forces.

Any concerns about WP:PLAGIARISM could be easily side-stepped by condensing it into "resupplying AMISOM". First, I capitalized "AMISOM" because it's an acronym. Second, the UN part seems superfluous since it's not a UN mission, just one that the UN approves of. Third, I thought "AMISOM forces" might be redundant in the context of a tactical resupply mission, so I got rid of "forces".

So now there was:

On August 4 2020, a Kenyan Air Force Harbin Y-12-II crashed after taking off at Dhobley Airstrip in Somalia while resupplying AMISOM...

Taking the immediately-above entries in the accident list as templates, and rearranging things because I thought it might make things flow better, yielded:

On 4 August 2020, a Y-12-II of the Kenyan Air Force resupplying AMISOM crashed after taking off from Dhobley Airstrip in Somalia...

As a whole, there was now:

On 4 August 2020, a Y-12-II of the Kenyan Air Force resupplying AMISOM crashed after taking off from Dhobley Airstrip in Somalia, 10 people on board survived but the aircraft was badly damage.

To break up the run-on sentence, I got:

On 4 August 2020, a Y-12-II of the Kenyan Air Force resupplying AMISOM crashed after taking off from Dhobley Airstrip in Somalia. 10 people on board survived. The aircraft was badly damage.

Taking the entries in the accident list as inspiration, I used one sentence for personnel, and one sentence for the aircraft. Those sentences could easily be merged.

"10 people on board survived" needed to be expanded to say "All 10 people on board survived"; otherwise, it could be interpreted as that there were more than 10 people on board. I like to think that changing "people on board" to "occupants" ("personnel" could also have been used) makes things less wordy, but I suppose that comes down to personal preference.

Changing "badly damaged" to "seriously damaged" was also a matter of personal preference. Either way works.

TL;DR

My edit was motivated by the desire to address issues - or potential issues - with the original text. Your complaint suggests that you do not understand the significance of what was done.

In your ignorance-induced umbrage, you claim that I am motivated by, effectively, a desire for personal glory. I wonder if you are merely projecting your own motivations upon others. Your user page seems to be well on its way to becoming a temple of self-aggrandizement. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Roving

Dear roving, for the citation critic you've made earlier this week, i agree with you. I later found out that Wikipedia (no matter in which language) is a unreliable source as some article itself is already having citation problems and Wikipedia is a platform where you collect information to write the article. However, according to community, WAF 2020 publish is a reliable hence international source thus cited multiple time by users, so you might want to undo your "undo edit" and find something that is wrong but not everything to delete. Besides, only the Chinese wiki have the stats. and they are often correct, we don't know the real, because PLA is highly suspicious and secretive. Hypersonic man11^Talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HEY, I AM THE ONE THAT SHOULD BE SAYING YOU

Okay, it's my fault to add wrong source to the "J-20" section, the real stats. of it is 50+ and I have a correct source for it(as the official wikipage has it). WAF2020 has everything, and what does this"WAF2020 lumps together "J-11/16/Su-27/30/35" into one category, but you used it to (incorrectly) verify the individual quantities in the article." has to do with the stats.? The stats are also written in PLAAF page of the WIKI, and someone has the information. "lump" huh, you should do more research before you criticized others. As of now, Wikipedia did not "support and encourage" the citing, but the cn Wikipedia is the only place that have the stats., and we need it. Prospectively, we don't know the stats. because the Chinese are hiding some of it, but we manage to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for your vandalism on WS-10 page

I have reported you for your vandalism on WS-10 page ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.72.222.15 (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ip didn’t tell you where the report is. It’s at WP:ANI. Neiltonks (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. El_C 17:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add the WS-10C to J-20's spec section

Could you please add the WS-10C to J-20's spec section.

Since now you have acknowledged it in the engine section.

Thanks.

--2601:152:4400:5580:511F:572E:AFA2:EF7D (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The spec section in the J-20 article reflects the aircraft which is in production. And as I've covered with you before, what's in production is using the AL-31. So I'm not going to change it. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

052D

Changed the section per your word.

25 planned using defense world.net

--66.194.212.134 (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio tag at Al-Mansur Qalawun

You tagged the article with the copyvio template in November of 2018. The entire paragraph was directly lifted and was foundational, thus I deleted the paragraph and called for a revdel. In the future, if you tag anything with a sure=yes value in the copyvio tag, it's often better to remove the violation or rewrite it at the time yourself. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J-20 revert.

The source in my revision is newer, and they are both reputable source. Both sources explicitly state the newer version of J-20 uses WS-10 while older uses AL-31. If you want to mention AL-31, you could add a new entry in the data table like the one on Su-57. Do not undo revision if you disagree. Provide source states J-20 manufacturer uses AL-31 in 2020. Otherwise it’s counted as vandalism. —Loned (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Early this year a vexatious editor tried to push the idea that the WS-10C-powered J-20s were in production (see that discussion starting at [[1]]). From what I can gather, prototypes powered by the WS-10C are now flying; in January apparently it was expected that testing would take a year. I do not think it was mentioned that the WS-10Cs were being used in production at that time. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Edit summaries

I understand my mistake about not specifying Edit summaries. But I need you to specify which article you're talking about, so that I can understand better. Thank you. Soumya Sekhar Biswas (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Type 095&096 NATO names

RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk · contribs)

Type 096 submarine The Type 096 is listed as Tang in numerous news articles including this from Forbes [2] and Globalsecurity.org: [3] others too.

Type 095 submarine Sui name is listed by news articles including globalsecurity.org which is used in lots of Wikipedia articles. [4] [5]

Seems like both can be sourced from reliable outlets and therefore aren't as you tagged them "original research". Lankyant (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those sources were not used in references, so it was either OR or PROVEIT. Even if those sources had been used, it would have been WP:UNDUE, at least relative to those annual US DoD reports which don't use any reporting names for those classes. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 06:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 183.90.37.230 (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese romanisations

1. Of all people you choose to misspell, you picked some of 20th century China's best statesmen. I find this absurdly racist, if not a neocolonialist reenactment of what these statesmen tried their hardest to overthrow, since NO ONE@wiki misspells ROMAN or Byzantine Greek emperor names, but that's not the point today---

About your misinterpretation of Wiki policies: It's not JUST a romanization. IT'S THEIR ENGLISH LANGUAGE NAME, because yes, mant of the great 20th century Chinese statesmen in question have been educated at IVY LEAGUE colleges. They can spell/speak English just fine!!! So your policy, if true, doesn't count, esp when ALL documents they or official media like Chou Enlai's "Hsinhua News" (literal spelling in Chou's document) feature "their English name," not just a garbled written transcription. Why is it an English name? Because...

2. You do know that Chinese people in the West consider Wade Giles their actual "Western name?" Just as Western as Peter/John, it's racist to consider one valid but the other not. You don't correct YOUR coworkers on how to pronounce or spell their names???

It's not a romanization issue but a basic respect issue, !!!just like it's not ok to be racist/ use the n word on Black people nor ANY ethnic slurs. !!!Willfully!!!/repeatedly butchering their names is a literal microaggression, if not hate crime akin to using racial slurs, and a fireable offense by HR.

3. It has previously been decided that pages CAN be MOVED to a romanization that they actually used. Ex: "Every name in his records refers to as "CHANG Hsueh-liang. It dose not make sense to rename a person to the name he never use. — HenryLi " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chang_Hsueh-liang#RFC_for_Pinyin_vs_WG_names Thus, there is literally nothing!!! controversial about NOTING that people in the time they lived in, esp the person in question HIMSELF, didn't spell it that way in their own English Books (Mr Liang), signed letters to American, in other words, ENGLISH speaking government officials (Mr Chou), or ironically, even the Communist Party's internal documents.

This is indeed the "WP: CommonName." I didn't even ask to RENAME+MOVE the page to save you guys the hassle, even though it ought to be done OUT OF RESPECT to them+to undo this linguistic neocolonialism. !!! Why on earth do Westerners@Wikipedia try to popularize misspelled, disrespectful names, is it ok to constantly butcher personal names at the office????? Should Chinese wiki insist on "TRAHMPEU" or "Aurbornma" for "Trump/Obama???"

4. It can even be a paragraph: "English romanization of name" During Mao's lifetime, the English-language media universally rendered his name as Mao Tse-tung, using the Wade-Giles system of transliteration for Standard Chinese though with the circumflex accent in the syllable Tsê dropped. Due to its recognizability, the spelling was used widely, even by the Foreign Ministry of the PRC after pinyin (Hanyu Pinyin) became the PRC's official romanization system for Mandarin Chinese in 1958; the well-known booklet of Mao's political statements, The Little Red Book, was officially entitled Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung in English translations. While the pinyin-derived spelling Mao Zedong is increasingly common, the Wade-Giles-derived spelling Mao Tse-tung continues to be used in modern publications to some extent.[11]"

If I got any policy wrong or if you think the issues aren't that serious/racist (I view as "Wiki's racist usage of literal ethnic slurs"), feel free to correct me. ;) I am so tired of racism and neocolonialism.

In the future, can we come together/craft a Wiki policy stating an exception to the pinyin rule: that it's R@CIST/unacceptable to misspell famous Chinese people's WESTERN names.

Thanks for understanding. And hope you come to China one day rather than with these silly Roman letter filters. ;) Frankly, fvck the Roman alphabet/all romanizations. ;) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.185.153 (talk) 8:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Editing Chinese Military wikipedia

I noticed that you have reverted several updates that I made on Chinese military warship pages. If you believe that the updates that I made don't have a strong enough source, please check and revert all the Chinese military-related pages both in English and in Chinese Mandarin, because I believe most if not all of them also don't have the strong verifiable sources that you demanded. TypingTyper (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent rules / explanation on Type 055 edits

I made the recent update on the Type 055 article for the latest commissioning.

The source cited was Naval News (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/11/chinas-4th-type-055-destroyer-anshan-%e9%9e%8d%e5%b1%b1-commissioned-with-plan/)

The edit was reverted with the reason that the source is not strong. This is inconsistent. The same source (Naval News/Xavier Vavasseur was cited (see ref 42) and accepted in a previous update. Why is the same source acceptable in previous updates (commissioning) but my updates using the same source was removed?

LionFlyer (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the lackluster Naval News and defenseworld.net sources for the datum was a mistake. I have replaced them. Thanks. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person deems him/herself an analyst, I see that you can write better articles than randomly and baselessly judging other websites that is just a de-facto copy and paste of GT. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese ship Type 071 and Type 055

According to Chinese wikipedia: Type 071 ship https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/071型综合登陆舰 Type 055 ship https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/055型导弹驱逐舰

The Chinese have commissioned 8 Type 071 ships and 4 Type 055 ships for their navy. These updates are not being reflected for the American version of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles1791 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All additions must be accompanied by appropriate references. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Citing sources.

In general, Wikipedia (any language) is not considered a reliable source. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 14:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User page

You can request your user page be deleted if you want it back they way it was. Admins will always do that for you when someone else starts your user page like that. See WP:UCSD-U1. (fyi) - wolf 19:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Navy did buy the Type 056 Corvette

The Algerian Navy did buy the Type 056 Corvette, and the side number is 940. Why was it returned? Aziz nurovich osmanyev (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It you are asking why your edits were reverted, it is because the sources used are not reliable sources (self-published personal or group blog without editorial oversight.) Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, particularly the section on "Questionable and self-published sources" (WP:QUESTIONABLE). - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit police?

How about trying to fix things insted of deleting? If you dont like URL links, edit it yourself. Walle83 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider fixing your poor edits if you used reliable sources (reputable/notable authors or publishers, publishers that seem to have some sort of editorial policy at work) Ultimately, it's your responsibility to to make edits that conform to Wikipedia's standards; competence is required. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because sources like Defenceworld is much more reliable then Naval.com? If you have so high standards no ships should be listed at all in the Chinese navy. Walle83 (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are unreliable sources in use that should be removed. Poor edits do not justify further poor edits.

And no, the WP:RS restrictions does not mean "no ships listed" for the PLAN. It means the lists are unlikely to include all the desired details, particularly concerning more recent events. That's unfortunate, and patience is the only remedy. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you edit deletes dont make any sense at all. "Im not allowing this but im keeping this in", basicly a hypocrite Walle83 (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not check/remember every edit, check/remember every source, make every possible correction, etc.. At this point, you're just trying to divert attention from your own actions by complaining how it's not fair that I'm not doing everything. (EDIT: It also sounds like an attempt to claim that it is not necessary for you to take responsibility for the edits that you have made because I'm not taking responsibility for hypothetical edits that I have not made. Frankly, that line of reasoning is unconvincing.)

As for Defenceworld, I did not realize/remember it was even used until I checked just now. Based on the about page - which at least has something compared to naval.com.br or its English mirror - it does seem underwhelming; the source article also isn't much to phone home about. On the whole, I am ambivalent about the source, and would not object to its removal and the appropriate modification of dependent content. I leave it to you to fix since - evidently - you feel somewhat stronger about it. No doubt you will encounter other uses of Defenceworld to assess. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 12:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Hainan Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yulin. 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) 09:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Project 640, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supergun.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined reference

Hi, in this edit you introduced a reference to "Wertheim 2013" but you did not define the reference. This adds the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and also means that nobody can look up your reference. If you could fix this error that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs

Hello, RovingPersonalityConstruct,

I just wanted to thank you for tagging articles for Proposed Deletion at the rate of a few pages, every few days rather than dozens at one time. There are only 2 or 3 admins who regularly review PRODs and it really helps to have a manageable number (usually between 20-40/day) rather than hundreds all at once. One day, an editor really overwhelmed us by PROD tagging 300 articles on one day but many of those articles were de-PROD'd and sent to AFD instead because it was such an unusually high number of page taggings, editors who check PROD'd articles couldn't review them all in a week. I appreciate you working through our articles on UAV and tagging ones that don't seem suitable for the project. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RovingPersonalityConstruct -- Further to this, if you plan a large series of proposed deletions it would be nice if you gave a heads-up to the relevant wikiprojects, so that they can perform a second check on your work. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I noticed you have compliled a huuuge list of Del/Noms on User talk: XdeLaTorre... well over 150 at this point, by my rough guess. Have you planned to address this? Perhaps filing a report, asking for sanctions, etc.? Cheers - wolf 05:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I'm leaning towards just a general note on editing (notability, reliable sourcing, formatting references, refbombing, etc.) on XdeLaTorre's talk page. Going through XdeLaTorre's more ancient edits, it seems that at the time the edits were accepted; at least one article has a rejected contemporary AFD that was raised on similar grounds to mine. Perhaps it really is just a case of ignorance/laziness arising from prior tolerance, and improvement is still possible. If improvement turns out to be elusive there's no shortage of evidence supporting administrative action. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty days and more than another 100 prod's later... yeesh. I noticed they haven't edited since late Sept, but just the same, perhaps mandatory AfC going forward is needed. Thoughts? - wolf 04:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I posted a comment about the wider issue here. I pinged, but it seems it may not have gone through. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks - wolf 20:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of AVIC 601-S

The article AVIC 601-S has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Name and existence of AVIC 601-S fails verification. Warrior Eagle and Shape Varying UAV are non-notable; insignificant and unsustained coverage. GJ-11 and Dark Sword have their own articles; relationship with 601-S is WP:OR and has since been removed from those articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undo edit on CHSPJ and other metro lines

Wikipedia isn't a place for unverified contents, as for facts that aren't cited or are cited with ERROR LINKS, shall all be cleared. @RovingPersonalityConstruct, On CHSPJ page, youtube link isn't a proper citation, a new edit has been made to clear the entire section due to lack of citation. As for subway-related-pages, section without citation shall all be removed including rolling stock status and design. Thanks for your understanding and stop reverting those edits. UNLESS YOU CAN FIND PROPER CITATION WITH A PROPER ROOT (KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN MALAYSIA (MOE MALAYSIA), PRASARANA BERHAD, OR ANY OTHER NEWS SITE, DO NOT UNDO THOSE EDITS. MUCH APPRECIATED. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANY INFO RELATED TO CHSPJ,LRT2,PUTRAJAYA MRT LINE NEEDS TO BE LINKED DIRECTLY TO KPM, PRASARANA OR OFFICIAL NEWS SITE! YOUTUBE LINK DOESN'T COUNT.

Sincerely, Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEWEB Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use better edit descriptions. Using "fixing citations" and "lacking citations" for removing citations is uninformative at best. If you are removing a source because you believe it is unreliable, you should say so in the edit summary.

Saying that, I did not assess the reliable of the sources removed given your edit summaries. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 13:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Lrt Pusat Bandar Puchong station, the source isn't accurate and is misleading. Moreover, even as a summary, all those facts needs to be VERIFIED AND CITED. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hunan–Hubei–Jiangxi Soviet

I know I was a bit frosted and frustrated adding and readding the other text, like why did you remove the postal text "Hunan–Hupeh–Kiangsi Soviet"? Most of the publications in the 20th century are written in postal and Wade-Giles before pinyin was adopted universally in 1982 and the PRC phased out the non-pinyin texts after 1987. -174.95.137.59 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a significant alternative name (MOS:ALTNAME), not for a topic that is heavily tied to the PRC-side of things is concerned, and certainly not in today's usage. A single self-published source does establish significance. Saying that, inclusion in one of the Chinese language transliteration templates would be appropriate; that's what they're there for.

For an ROC-related article things would be different where exceptions under WP:PINYIN are required/permitted. You can sort of see the difference between how the lead sections for Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek are handled. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 22:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

199.7.157.125

Can you help? Please undo the edits that Special:Contributions/199.7.157.125 has done. It is likely a sock that one of the users you blocked/banned. -199.7.156.253 (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check for User:George walinin333’s socks. -208.98.222.102 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and I can only recognize so many editors. It may be better to raise your concerns at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; the admins are quite willing to take action if provided with evidence. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Have some tea for reporting that one disruptive account that kept messing up Deng Xiaoping's photo among other misdeeds. You're actually the very first user I'm sending WikiLove, I hope you feel honored (; OwcaGierka (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to article: HQ-9

Hey there,

Could you kindly elaborate on your concerns for WP:SELFPUB in citing the spec sheet from Zhuhai Airshow 2022 for the HQ-9 system?

The placard at the show appears to be directly provided by the system's maker CASIC so its a rare piece of primary source that is likely more authoritative than the current sources.

Thanks for your time on this.

P.S. Source placard as mentioned:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/attachments/hq9be-jpg.100974/ Freedomv20 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file is inaccessible which makes verification impossible. WP:SELFPUB reflected the source (enthusiast web forum) and was the only thing I could say about it.

Even if it were accessible, it doesn't change that it was not published by a reliable source. Images can be altered. A reliable source would - one way or another - vouch for the authenticity of the work. Even better, a reliable source would describe in prose what the image depicted (which, incidentally, would negate the need to reference the image directly.) An enthusiast web forum is not such a source.

And if the image is authentic, it's also a primary source which is not ideal. If it got past the above hurdle and were to be referenced directly, the best way to use it would be to add something to the article body along the lines of "CASIC advertises the missile to have a range of x." - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 09:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I agree with your retraction now as it was indeed inappropriate of my edit to cite an access-restricted link. I won't take further actions on this article.

I also understand your points on source reliability and think they are valid. One lingering concern I have is going forward whether to treat other similar sources as sub-ideal in providing reference to headline specifications. AIUI, it is unlikely for in-service weapon systems to release indisputable evidence on their exact performances and brief brochures/spec sheets provided by the makers during exhibitions or other channels are likely among the most authoritative information one can reasonably expect in the public domain.

Here is a 3rd party hosting of the placard image for what the edit was intended with just for the time's worth: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52478797028_3715b88a92_k.jpg Freedomv20 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenyang J-8

Hi, what's with all the massacre-denial by this IP range? They obviously aren't interested in a discussion, just pushing their POV. I thinking of approaching the admin who indefinitely protected the massacre article, and see if he can give some long-term semi-protection to the J-8 article. BilCat (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection couldn't hurt. My request for page protection was met with a single IP being blocked (Special:Diff/1141889675).

Looks like a borderline problem editor judging from the edits and edit comments (including another massacre removal from Aspide Special:Diff/1138873223, and messing with the designer field in the infobox on the old favorite CAIC Z-10 Special:Diff/1013605648.) It makes me wonder what else may have slipped by. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 22:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my request met with the IP range being blocked for a week, which is better than nothing. If they show up on another range, or from registered users, then that would be block avoidance, and we might get it protected then. It's a process sometimes, but a range block will help. BilCat (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need help out here

See the edits: Special:Contributions/24.114.79.210, this is uncalled for. -76.69.130.150 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan's status

You reverted the edits on the History of the administrative divisions of China (1912–1949) article. The blue highlight on Taiwan meaning it’s still in dispute, Japan gave up Taiwan de facto on 25 October 1945, de jure on 28 April 1952 after the SFPT was signed. This is still debated. -174.91.109.235 (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J-10 Top Speed

Hi there. I have a question about this edit. I understand your removal of the source for the max speed of the J-10, but in your edit remove the non-RS, you also changed the numerical value to Mach 1.8 from Mach 2. It's not clear to me from your edit summary why you have changed that value, but maybe I've missed something? Do you have a source for that lower value, or why you changed it? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to note that I was reverting this edit. 1.8 is the value that was there before. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for the clarification. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ROC on List of legislatures by number of members

When you reverted the edits of List of legislatures by number of members article in regards to ROC-Taiwan, it would appear the ROC's tricameral parliament still exists de jure at least nominally under the Constitution of the Republic of China. Presently in the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China, only the Legislative Yuan remains. The National Assembly is suspended and the Control Yuan is only appointed by the President. It can be explained here: [6] -76.68.77.224 (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should add the details to Government of the Republic of China. Make sure you use a proper reference (Help:Referencing for beginners), and reference by page numbers (Help:References and page numbers). - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I strongly disagree with listing the ROC/Taiwanese parliament as tricameral. In my view, the list reflects the current forms of various parliaments/legislatures. For the ROC/Taiwan, that parliament is de jure unicameral via various constitutional amendments. The historical forms of the parliament do not belong in that list. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unicameral is technically de facto under the Additional Articles. They have a sunset clause that abolishes it once the ROC regains mainland China in the event of the collapse of communist rule. You may able to revert or add some parts of it in case. Both the original and Additional Articles are separate Constitutional documents but the latter is only applied in Taiwan, while the original is meant for the whole country of China before the communists took over. TLDR: ROC's parliament is still tricameral at least nominally. Under the Additional Articles, the National Assembly is de facto suspended since 2005 and the Control Yuan hasn’t had elections de facto since 1993. Both houses continue to exist de jure. -76.68.77.224 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC-CN question.

As far as I know regarding the reverting the edits to China–Honduras relations, I don’t understand why did you revert it for no reason. Can you explain regarding WP:NC-CN? 174.89.100.7 (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC-CN pretty much means that, unless there is going to be confusion, "China" means the PRC and "Taiwan" means the post-1949 ROC; the use of those terms are preferred due to WP:COMMONNAME. If there is confusion, that's where "PRC" and "ROC" become necessary.

For a year now (if not more) you have been substituting other terms for "China" and "Taiwan" when there was no need, using "China" when "Taiwan" was appropriate, and otherwise mangling other terms (for example: Special:Diff/1146788452; truncating "The People’s Republic of China" to "the People’s Republics" is egregious and it is not the first time you have done something like that for the term PRC.)

This just ties into the Taiwan POV-pushing you have been generally engaged in for the past year.

I have had - and continue to have - the misfortune of dealing with PRC POV-pushing. You have the dubious distinction of introducing me to the other side of the coin. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you’re the admin, would you mind hide the edits (change visibility) to prevent reverts instead? Besides, this encyclopedia is meant to be neutral, like everybody else. Many Taiwan editors are positioned to be biased pro-green. 174.89.100.7 (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin and am not in a position to either receive or respond to technical requests regarding the wiki software or its configuration. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. I am very sure to be aware of WP:NC-CN. Thanks again for the advice and have a good spring season. I’ll give you a chocolate bar. 🍫 174.89.100.7 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keelung

Please don’t touch the Keelung edits. I’m objecting against your reverts, it is the history of the city as a whole not the island itself.

History: https://www.klcg.gov.tw/en/klcg2/3280.html 174.89.100.11 (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I give up (for now)

Hi Roving, I like to inform you that I will be stepping away from the Taiwan/PRC article areas for a while. This isn’t even working! Hope this helps when I return. Thank you. 174.89.100.11 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Russia–European Union relations, may have been a change that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When making possibly controversial changes, it is good practice to first discuss your edit on the article's talk page before making it, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. 174.89.100.11 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Examination Yuan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. -174.89.100.11 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Outer Mongolia, you may be blocked from editing. And a reminder to you that the infobox is added and the entire article needs to be expanded from the Chinese Wikipedia. This needs to be improved rather than removing and reverting. -174.89.100.11 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop pushing WP:FRINGE views. Outer Mongolia stopped being a significant division after it was superseded by some version of independent Mongolia. The historical items you added to the infobox are really part of the latter's history, not the former.

It really seems like the hallmarks of your editing are POV-pushing, FRINGE, and original research. It's a repeat of Talk:List_of_legislatures_by_number_of_members#Republic_of_China all over again, where you inject your interpretation instead of considering what reliable sources are saying. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are from the Chinese Wikipedia though. @Matt Smith will eye on it. This is from the ROC perspective (as is with Tibet Area (administrative division)). @Ymblanter I need some assistance. 174.89.100.11 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being from another language Wikipedia does not automatically mean that it is appropriate or necessary to include it on the EN-lang Wikipedia. They - or the sources they use - are potential sources of content if their use is appropriate and/or desirable.

In this case, you are effectively duplicating, using less accessible non_english sources, the content of other articles like Mongolia–Taiwan relations, various versions of History of Mongolia, and articles about independent Mongolia, in an article that should just refer to other articles for post-1921 (or just about) history. The lede already, to an extent, does this. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the Tibet Area (administrative division) article pretty much tries to do what I outlined. For example, the infobox seems to limit itself to periods of effective control (if that, hard to say in relation to the ROC and Tibet, but the infobox cuts the ROC year at 1951) or administrative existence (in the case of the PRC.) The history section doesn't try to duplicate, in full, either the history or political status of Tibet during/after the indicated period. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But hey, Roving, if don't want to keep Outer Mongolia, do you want to delete or merge it with History of Mongolia? 174.89.100.11 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Outer Mongolia

An article that you have been involved in editing—Outer Mongolia—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.

Memo to @Matt Smith, Sir Sputnik, and Chipmunkdavis: 174.89.100.11 (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may require your help for some socketpuppet account vandalism

Noting this IP (User:FlameCelestial. contribustion), who is arbitrarily enforcing his own personal political bias towards any Taiwan-related topics, even in some pure geopgraphical articles. I have reported the IP several times but the admin is seem always attempting to dodge the issue and fail to deter his behaviour to refrain from doing so. This IP address could probably be the same person Special:Contributions/116.15.108.219. I did not have a high authority to prevent or know much about mechanism in Wikipedia regulations against such construct, so I presume that you might able to offer some help. LVTW2 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye out. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RovingPersonalityConstruct, I understand that LVTW2 has requested for your assistance on matters of my edits. I would wish to bring to attention that LVTW2 requests for increased page protection (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase) for pages that I have edited have been denied multiple times. Similarly, 2 reports made against me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring have also found no violations. Additionally, LVTW2 has a past history of edit warring (talk) which resulted in a 24 hour ban from editing Taiwan, on top of past uncivil behaviour here that seems to have violated WP:CIVIL.

I'm not sure why LVTW2 is so fixated on all my edits, but I do believe that unjustified allegations both past and present (including socketpuppetry) against me are unwarranted. I hope that this provides some additional perspective. FlameCelestial (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly interested in LVTW2's proverbial battle scars. Participate long enough and you get them. I have them; just read my talk page. What I am interested in is your edits, FlameCelestial.

First, per WP:NC-CN and WP:COMMONNAME, it is acceptable to refer to the PRC as "China". In Wikipedia usage, "mainland China" is used to describe a geographical area, not a polity; it is not interchangeable with China. That's why your edit to the military band article is unacceptable; that article is divided by polity. Also note that the COMMONNAME for the modern ROC is Taiwan (the island itself is under geography of Taiwan.)

Second: I can only guess why "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is used, but I suspect it is meant to highlight relevance to the modern form of the ROC, as opposed to the pre-1949 form. This strikes me as reasonable and so I see little value in going around changing them. If there are instances that do merit changing (for technical reasons like matters of presentation, cleaning up the prose, etc.) it should be to "Taiwan" (taking advantage of COMMONNAME) not to "Republic of China" (which is more ambiguous.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. While I do not have any qualms using "Taiwan" to refer to the geographical island, my concern is that adding the suffix "(Taiwan)" to "Republic of China" is a contentious grey area topic as it has a reputation of being used as a subtle ideological push for Taiwanese independence (which if I am not mistaken will be go against NPOV). Furthermore, considering that "(Taiwan)" somehow gets added into the same hyperlink as "Republic of China", it does create certain confusion that having the suffix is the official term. Hence, I am of the opinion that with regards to any political issue, the terms to be used should be PRC/ROC and for geographical issues, Mainland China/Taiwan. Nonetheless, I do admit that there are lots of topics that overlap between politics and geography and I am more than happy to discuss further with you (though I do not know if this is the appropriate place for it).

With regards to the military band article, since you mentioned that the article is divided by polity, would it be best to rename "China" to "People's Republic of China" to deconflict? I will not be making further edits till we reach a consensus here (to prevent edit warring). FlameCelestial (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I don't have any strong opinion concerning POV where "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is concerned. But if it is a concern, my reaction would be to reduce to "[[Taiwan]]" on the basis of COMMONNAME. References to the island would use "[[geography of Taiwan|island of Taiwan]]" if the context is unclear; I'm sure there are places where "[[geography of Taiwan|Taiwan]]" is used because the context is clearly geographical.

This is just my take on it. It may be beneficial to ask the people over in Wikipedia:WikiProject China and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan for additional guidance and perspective. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the military band article, I'm inclined to leave it using the COMMONNAMEs. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I Ask An Admin ?

You keep vandalizing the JL-3 page.

Should I ask for an admin? BoeingEngineer (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, User:Shulinjiang. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 07:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada

Your recent editing history at Liberal Party of Canada shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 16:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.94.122 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Grand Harbour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air raid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Li Qiang Birthday

Checked where the alleged citation came from on zhwiki re: Li's birthday, as well as from not only official CPC sources but also interviews and other news sources, and could not find anything to substantiate the 23rd date. Furthermore, I checked blame, and there was no justification for its add on zhwiki, either. Thusly, I removed it from that page, as well. Thank you for your attention to detail and removing it from enwiki. Top5a (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

Look out for User:Ja3bwatts. This user is saying the ROC President is the "President of Taiwan" but it’s wrong. The President of the Republic of China is the head of state of the country known as "China" which has a disputed sovereignty with the PRC in both mainland and Taiwan. See the president of the Republic of China article and eye on that user. It’s likely a Taiwan independence bot. -142.113.194.219 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've likely indicated before in our many past encounters, I'm more concerned with your edits. More than 3 years of editing and you're still running foul of WP:NPOV and WP:NC-CN in China-Taiwan articles, and generally WP:RS and WP:OR everywhere else (particularly anime and WWF/WWE articles.)

To put it succinctly, you are a long-term disruptive and tendentious editor, one who constantly switches IPs to escape responsibility. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns. If you have the time, an article County-level divisions of China should be created like Prefecture-level divisions of China and Province-level divisions of China.

Let’s think outside the box. WP:NC-CN can also cover the Republic of China in the mainland period between 1912 and 1949 and WP:NC-TW should focus on the Republic of China on Taiwan since 1945. ROC historical periods needs to cover two periods in each scope. 142.113.194.219 (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject China and Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 06:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qamar Bani Hashim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Type 056 corvette - Algeria as an operator

Algeria has indeed purchased atleast one (and upto six) Type 056 corvettes. The first one, El-Moutassadi, was delivered earlier this year, and on her delivery voyage, even made a port visit to India. This has been covered in multiple news articles. Hence, I updated the page on the Type 056 to reflect Algeria as an operator. This was subsequently reverted by you (on 25th September 2023).

Would you kindly explain why you did so? With sufficient sources at hand detailing both the delivery voyage as well as the port visit, there is ample proof that the ship is now in Algerian service. Requesting you to clarify, or else undo the removal. R Anant (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you used is from a publisher of no notability or reputation (hence my edit comment of "WP:RS".) If there are "multiple news articles" about this, then perhaps you might find one or two that are reputable. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Generations of Chinese leadership, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Military Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Ziyang Comments

Hey, so you said that Judd was the one making the claim and not the All-China Women’s Federation. While I’d like to hear your interpretation which led you to this view, I don’t necessarily disagree as it is not entirely clear from the text where Judd is drawing her information for this specific claim. However, in that case I question where Judd got this information from as she cites zero sources for this and is not a primary source witness. In addition, I have examined dozens of different papers at this point about Chinese Feminism which mention Ziyang, and none of these corroborate her claim with many painting Ziyang in a somewhat positive light. So if the only evidence for this exceptional claim is that Judd mentioned she thinks it happened offhand, then I feel that should not be sufficient for it to be stated as if it is a commonly accepted truth by general scholarship. But maybe I’m misunderstanding something? Thanks! Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look, I think the problem goes a bit deeper. The text in the article synthesizes two points in Judd: the lack of women in high-level party leadership in the 1987 congress, and the women organizations attributing the loss of women in lower positions to Zhao's comments. Presenting the two points separately makes it clear that the matter of Zhao's comments comes from the organizations.

Taking a look at Zhao's quotation and the source, it's a stretch to say that Zhao "denied" anything without knowing what the question he was responding to was. It might be closer to the sources to just say something like "according to Zhao the lack of women was not the result of a change in party policy." - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 06:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am fine with your second sentence here, I can see why one might see my wording as somewhat inaccurate, as Zhao was answering a newspaper at the time asking why there were no women in the congress, and never made any comments regarding the later 2002 allegations in Judd's paper. His point in the quote was not that he had not personally caused the lack of women, it was that the party had not, as the common narrative at the time was that the Dengist reform movement was sidelining women in a reaction to the Cultural Revolution, not Ziyang specifically. So I can see why you think my phrasing it as him denying Judd/ACWF's claim would be inaccurate, as it implies he was making a direct response, when my intention was more to indicate that the quote still served as a denial of Judd's later argument because he denied he had anything to do with the lack of women in the 13th Congress.

For the first sentence, I also kind of agree, but I've made some minor edits to your version of the sentence to make it flow a little better and for minor accuracy points. The main one was that you said various women's organizations including the ACWF made the claim about Zhao Ziyang lowering political participation, when I believe the original claim was that the ACWF made the claim that Zhao Ziyang lowered political participation in women's organizations. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem I have most with your revision is that it seems to be trying very hard to make a value judgement, which not only makes it very wordy but also starts falling afoul of MOS:CLAIM and WP:NPOV.

In addition, it tries to interpret the sources (possibly introducing WP:OR), which given this seems to a somewhat controversial subject, should be avoided. Like the part of Zhao's quotation that really should be retained in full (possibly modified for clarity, via MOS:BRACKET) is "doesn't mean [the party has] adjusted [its] policies on women." This is not the same thing as saying that there were no changes to party policy; he's neither saying that there were nor that there weren't, he merely suggests that to assume that there were changes and that those changes - if there were any - affected the elections is not necessarily correct. (It's like if I were to say: "The garbage bin caught on fire while I was standing beside it, but it doesn't mean that I did it." I'm not saying that I did it. I'm not saying that I did not do it. I'm saying that without further evidence, which may not exist or may not have been discovered, it is not appropriate to make a conclusion.)

The part about women's organizations and the ACWF comes from Judd ([7]) so there's nothing wrong with what I had, so far as the sources being used are concerned.

Try to stick as closely as possible to the points in the sources. As Wikipedia editors, we're just here to say — as bluntly as concision and readability allow — that they said it, not to determine whether what was said is correct. We can always present alternate views, allowing for WP:WEIGHT and explicitly attributing content in the body text as necessary (like how I was using "according to..."). If it really does come to down to a value judgement that needs to be made on Wikipedia, then that should be hashed out before changes to the article is made. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me which part makes you think it is making a value judgement? If I read through my edit and imagined myself as a totally ignorant viewer, I honestly feel like I'd think Ziyang was just lying and quite possibly was secretly misogynist, which is not the belief I personally hold. Like, the statement he's making that congress having zero female members is just a coincidence seems like a blatant lie. I obviously can't objectively roleplay as a bystander, but I'd be curious to know which parts gave you that impression.

Isn't saying the "party hasn't adjusted its policies on women" the same as saying "the party hasn't changed its policy regarding women"? It seems to me Ziyang isn't saying something like "I neither confirm nor deny a policy change", its more like, "We allowed women to run for election as normal and the fact there are none in congress is just because all of the female candidates who ended up running were coincidentally not elected".

Okay I checked back through Judd's writing, and it looks like I was just straight up wrong on women's organization claim so I concede that this is what she said and I'm fine with keeping it as part of the claim. On a personal level though, I feel like the fact she names none of these women's organizations or representatives of those women's organizations again points to my issue with such an exceptional claim having no corroborating secondary or primary sources to back it up. I'm fine with keeping the quote and all of the information, but I feel due to this lack of multiple sources for an exceptional claim, which is to my knowledge a required Wikipedia standard of Verifiability, we should allow readers to gleam a reasonable doubt of the information presented. My goal in the revisions was basically to give readers the idea that there's a decent chance Zhao Ziyang might have been misogynist but there is not conclusive evidence (which again is not my personal position).

Regardless, I'm not sure if you saw, but Horse Eye's Back ended up just reverting my edit all the way back to the original version from a few days ago, which I personally think is much more biased and incorrect than my latest edit. However, I think your latest edit is definitely acceptably accurate, and my revisions to it were mostly nitpicks, so if neither of you like my edits I'd be happy to accept yours rather than go back to the original claim. I'm not sure of your feelings, but to me the current wording of Horse Eye's Back's edit, which is the same as when he originally added Judd's claim in 2020 to the page, makes it seem as if the claim that Ziyang was openly against female political participation is an accepted and/or well evidenced claim being used to prove the allegations from the ACWF, when in reality they are from the same secondary source, and are almost certainly from the same or similar primary sources. Plus he says that the allegations being proven are that Zhao is attributed with causing the lack of women in the congress, when I think we have both agreed that Judd only says Zhao was associated with the lack of women in lower levels of the party due to his alleged open comments against female participation in politics. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the "value judgement":

The wording (use of "claim".) Zhao's view is worded to be accepted uncritically, while the opposite was true for the women's orgs. But this could easily be corrected by just using the neutral "according to".
Kyung Ae Park includes the quotation rather than write "When asked about this, former General Secretary Zhao Ziyang replied that the results were not due to changes in party policy." I am wary of categorically and outright saying that ourselves if Kyung Ae Park - who I assume is/was an academic in good standing - saw fit not to say that themselves. That phrase "doesn't mean", in my mind, makes it unsafe to declare either way.

If I were revise things further, I'd cut down the Zhao part to just:

The 13th Congress was also notable for the absence of women in the party leadership; according to Zhao, the election results "[didn't] mean [the party had] adjusted [its] policies on women."

For Judd, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt; I cursory Googling didn't turn up anything alarming concerning her academic credentials. The lack of primary sources for the passage in question would be due to the book being based on her own field work from the late-1980s. Saying that, to be on the safe side going back to something like what you had before would seem appropriate:

According to Ellen Judd, women organizations, including the All-China Women's Federation, attributed the reduced number of women in lower party positions to Zhao's "open comments" against women's political participation.

I agree that Horse Eye's Back's revision is inadequate. Would you care to start a discussion on the article talk page? I think this may become a three-way thing. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the use of claim, while it was definitely not my intention to use terms with different connotations for either of the claims (I believe my thought process was more along the lines of making the sentences flow well), I can see your point and I’d be fine with using “according to”, though I do think the grammar of your original edit did feel somewhat awkward though not informationally incorrect.

For the Kyung Ae Park point, I kind of see what you’re getting at but I’m not entirely sure if your argument makes sense to me. I think in the context Park was originally using the quote for, she disagreed with Ziyang’s statement that there had been no change in policy, or at least in implicit policy (there had been no formal policy change but clearly the lack of women was not just a coincidence). On top of the fact that I think I’d agree with Park’s assessment, I also concur that we should not state what Ziyang said as if it were necessarily true, however in my edit from my pov I thought I had made it clear this was a statement of Ziyang’s rather than some like official Wikipedia position. While I agree with Park that Ziyang was in the quote either lying or naive, the reason I nonetheless included it was threefold. First, because I think it puts into doubt the claim that Ziyang was openly making statements (meaning publicly) saying that he opposed female political participation, as clearly regardless of actual beliefs the party line at that time was that the Communist Party supported Feminist struggle. Second, because Ziyang personally made a statement disagreeing with an idea presented in the article about him, I thought it would be proper to include it, just as I would think you’d want to put Nixon’s quote where he says he’s not a crook in a page on Richard Nixon. And third, I think his sentiment that he wished a woman had been elected but none were, better represents what Ziyang probably believed on women’s issues, that being he really didn’t want to stick his neck out in either direction, as his primary focus at least in the short term was furthering political and economic reform. But I’m probably willing to just include the whole thing as a quote rather than have any of it being explained in my own words if you prefer that, again I feel this is probably mostly just a stylistic disagreement.

For your proposed edit, I do feel the other half of the quote is kind of important in the context of the broader debate, as whereas right now you only show Ziyang saying that the party is still feminist, the part about wishing women were in the party implies more that he’s stating what his personal belief is (or at least what he thinks is acceptable/beneficial to say his personal beliefs are to newspapers). It also is distinct because just the part you included seems more like he’s clarifying a procedural detail, that the official party platform had not been updated, whereas in the full quote he’s claiming all of the party leadership wished more women had run for election. It’s basically the distinction between simply not breaking with tradition and actively supporting said tradition.

I do agree with your statements on Judd. I tried to do my own research on Judd to see if she seemed to have any biases or issues with her records, and while I couldn’t find much in general, I don’t think I believe Judd was actually lying or anything here. I do have a lot more I’d like to say on this specific issue, but in order to not waste your time I won’t ramble about my thoughts here since I basically agree with you. So yeah I’d be happy with keeping my previous edit of that part if you have no objections.

I’d be happy to open a topic on the Zhao Ziyang talk page in reference to this. Edit: Which I have now done. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HGV20

sorry how is it unsourced content, a HGV does not replace a ballistic missile, it replaces a warhead. May I request you search up what a warhead is. A ballistic missile carries the HGV so a hgv can not replace a warhead. Search up what a HGV is on wikipedia. 158.223.122.211 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit are you referring to?

In general, you've made many edits that do not comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Changes must be properly referenced, and content must agree with the provided references; see Help:Referencing for beginners. Also Wikipedia is not a reliable source (WP:USERG.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Special:Diff/1213693212, note that the sentence you modified is a direct quotation; there are encapsulating quotation marks, a reference is provided (to [8]), and the source is even explicitly noted in the text ("According to the Arms Control Association..."). Your edit turns this into a misquote and misrepresents what the source says. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made some edits to the PLA, the PLA is not the armed forces, it is a part of the armed forces. It is the armed wing of the chinese communist party 158.223.122.211 (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links when referring to an edit. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1214854349 - Note that the previous edit says that the PLA is the "the principal armed forces of the Chinese Communist Party". This seems true; the last edit to that sentence (Special:Diff/1178831294) explains the rationale for it. Your edit rationale completely misses what was said; it did not say that the PLA is the armed forces of China.

This is not the first time that you have failed to comprehend what was being said before making an edit. One of the latest examples is Special:Diff/1213373005, where you missed the "in service" bit when changing the number of large Chinese aicraft carriers. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The PLA is the only armed wing of the CPC, so what does principal mean? whoever got that from the PLA page where it says the PLA is the principal military force of china( that is also wrong) it is the only military force of china. 158.223.122.211 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to address something that is unrelated to what the current revision of PLA is saying.

* The text in PLA is not about whether or not the PLA is the armed wing of the CCP.

* The text in PLA is not about whether or not the PLA is the principal military force of China.

* The text in PLA is not about whether or not the PLA is the only military force of China.

The text, as written, is about whether or not the PLA is the main/principle armed force under the control of the CCP. If you had bothered to follow the links in my previous post (Special:Diff/1178831294) — which I suspect that you did not — you will note that the comment for that edit points out that the PLA is indeed not the only armed force under the CCP's control.

In other words, the existing revision is fine. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ranks of PLA

that rank was changed to staff sergeant first class like in all other branches of the PLA. Go on to those webpages and you will see they have changed it, and if you bothered to read the link, it was a draft that was approved by the national peoples congress. People Win Wars: A 2022 Reality Check on PLA Enlisted Force and Related Matters - War on the Rocks if you follow that you will see a table which tells you the new ranks 158.223.122.133 (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add the reference in the article, not the edit comment. See Help:Referencing for beginners. I've pointed this out before. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Ranks of the People's Liberation Army Air Force

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ranks of the People's Liberation Army Air Force, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lin biao

The flag for the ground forces was there originally, can i put it back? 2A00:23C5:348D:4301:CCDE:5F63:BFBB:A049 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you want to add ignoring the Wikipedia:Manual of Style to the list of ways that you make poor edits. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLAGF Ranking

similar to what we did to the rank of the peoples liberation army air force, can you help me add that to the PLAGF ranking page. Ive already added the reference, Clay, Marcus; Blasko, Dennis J.; Lee, Roderick Lee (12 August 2022). "People Win Wars: A 2022 Reality Check on PLA Enlisted Force and Related Matters". War on the Rocks., which is number 22. Retrieved 28 March 2024.158.223.122.201 (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When adding citations using <ref> tags, insert the citation into the article body where it is used/relevant; it will he added to the References section automatically from there. Do not add the citation into the References section manually.

Go and read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. At the very least, take some time to browsing Wikipedia:Good articles, get a feel for those are like in content and markup, and replicate that. It's time to get competent after years of poor editing. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 14:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but I cant seem to edit the ranking table on the edit page. Also i have not been editing for years, maybe a few months 158.223.122.201 (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table is in a template (Template:PLAGF_Other); this is indicated by the brackets ({{}}.)

Wikipedia:Teahouse is available when you need assistance. It would also be easier for you to receive help if you used an account instead of bouncing between IP addresses. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YJ-21

It clearly is in source, because it says it features a hypersonic manoeuvrable conventional warhead, which IS by definition a hypersonic glide vehicle 2A00:23C5:348D:4301:197D:1D3:1DBD:BEC (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The YJ-21 is only mentioned once in the article [9], within the first two sentences. There, it says the missile was launched from a Type 055 VLS and that it was hypersonic. The rest of the article is not about the YJ-21.

This is yet another example of your (158.223.0.0/16/2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64) WP:DISRUPTIVE editing:

Failing to read the source (WP:VERIFY/WP:PROVEIT)
Poor English comprehension (WP:COMPETENCE)
Repeating claims or reverted edits on talk pages without corroborating evidence, as if such repetition would make the claims true (WP:REHASH). - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLA unit grade

First, a million thanks for adding the grade system part to the PLA article. I've been working on a general article for the whole grade system in my sandbox, but I have a problem: what the hell do I call it? There is no agreed translation in the professional literature, and stuff such as "leader grade", "unit grade" "unit level", "leadership level" can all be found. The problem is that the concept is "unit grade that will give its leader a grade when appointed" can be interpreted as a unit issue (so you see translations as "sub-corps" unit) or a leadership issue (So it should be "corps-deputy-leader unit".

As I am trying to give the grade to all the PLA and PAP units that don't have it in the en wiki (the majority), it's kind of an issue. I'd appreciate your input.

Another thing, for someone more experienced than me, is there a way to change the military unit template to allow a slot for unit grade? Useless for other countries' armed forces, but important for the PRC.

--Arrorro (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My exposure to the topic and relevant literature is limited, so I'm not familiar with the variations of terminology. My first thought would be to use grades like ranks. So saying that, here my half-baked thoughts:

Article title: Something like "Grades of the armed forces of China" (that would be like other titles which seemed based on WP:PRECISION). I don't know if there is a formal term that might be used instead.

Referring to grades

Avoid - where possible - using "grade" when referring to grades by name.

"Bob is a deputy division leader and colonel in the..." / "Bob was promoted to deputy division leader in..."
"The 123th Unit is a deputy division leader organization..."

"Organization" could be a good substitute qualifier for "unit", and could be used for nearly everything that's not a position/office/billet or person (various departments, universities, etc.) Maybe even for ships?

Handling organization "promotions"/"demotions" could get a bit wordier:

"The 123th Unit upgraded to deputy division leader in..."
"The 123th Unit upgraded to a deputy division leader organization in..."
"The 123th Unit's grade changed to deputy division leader in..."

"The commander of the 123th Unit is a deputy division leader office..."

I've never had to request a template modification before. Start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (the template's parent project) about adding grades to the template. I think that adding a new field may not be best option given the limited wider application; I would find adding grades through another field, like type, attractive. But start the discussion and see where it goes. If there is support for template modifications, then make the request on Template talk:Infobox military unit with a link to the discussion. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chengdu J-10

I'm trying to raise the concern to administrators about 195.224.252.228 (talk · contribs)'s disruptive behavior on many Chinese aircraft articles at ANI. You are an expert at citing Wikipedia edit policy, so any input from would be really helpful. Thank you.-Loned (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the admins won't see this as a matter requiring their intervention, at least at this time. There aren't that many relevant edits in the Special:Contributions/195.224.252.0/24 and Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01::/64 ranges. The most concerning and recent flare up is with the J-10 article which, aside from a bit of edit warring, is still within the bounds of a content dispute that should be resolved on the talk page (I guess I'm involved in that now too.)

On that matter of the current content dispute, there may be quick and easy way out. Based on edit comments (eg. Special:Diff/1100020148, Special:Diff/1220743608) there seems to be a WP:AIR consensus to omit the whole generations thing from lede sections. Regrettably, I can't find where WP:AIR talked about it. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I see that you have removed the 4.5th gen for J-10C in the Variants section. Your fellow contributer 'Loned' accepted the source and made the entry on the page.

Therefore, there is a clear contradiction here in 'who's' and 'what' standard are we going by? Yours or Loned?.

Another thing, you mentioned the source, was from Hush and not from Bronk, but from the below copied extract from the webpage, the comment was made by Bronk.

” In summary, Bronk firmly places the J-10C in Generation 4.5* “All in all, the J-10C is a significant leap into true ‘4.5th Generation’ capability for the PLAAF compared to the earlier variants of this distinctive bird. *something he defines as including “low-observability to radar; the ability to supercruise (fly at supersonic speed without using afterburners); and extreme manoeuvrability at all speeds.”.

Bronk is from RUSI think tank, so I would like to know your credentials in disagreeing with Bronk's view that J-10C is a 4.5th gen.

Thanks. 2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:7C0A:7D41:CE43:555 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I failed to parse the latter part of the passage, which does indeed come from Bronk. I was confused by the "In summary, Bronk firmly places the J-10C in Generation 4.5", which is in Hush Kits voice but was also italicized. I have re-added the bit to the J-10C section. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thank you for the acceptance and undoing the revision, I would think myself and Loned agree to this and there is consensus between us.

So a bit of background, as far as I can see, me and Loned are having different views in only just one area (I am happy for Loned to jump in if he disagrees). This is regarding the opening/first paragraph of the J-10 page, I am requesting the updated change from 4th gen to 4.5th gen, that's it.

This is because I want to reflect the latest marjority update/progress identification of the fighter, his view is that the opening part is not covering J10-C only but other variants. In a sense, I see where Loned is coming from, but even based on his view, I am sure that if we are talking about other variants, then the best way is to take a average or majority to make a definitive labelling whether the opening paragraph is 4th or 4.5th gen.

As it stands and in Loned view, the first variant, J-10A is a 4th gen fighter, Variant B onwards, the figter is classified as 4.5th gen.

Source below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_fighter#4.5_generation

So if the openning paragraph is to give a snap shot of the generation of the fighter, it should be labelled as a 4.5th gen accordingly. (updated from 4th gen).

In order to further support this, I would like to direct you to the below wikipedia links of two fighters in the same classification as the J-10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

I am sure you and Loned as seasoned wikipedia contributors would agree and want Wikipedia pages to be consistent and follow the same rules, especially in this case, fighters of same classification to be labelled correctly and consistently in the opening paragraphs.

If you look at the opening paragraphs for the two fighters, you can see that they are classified as 4.5th gen fighters despite being 4th gen in their first variants respectively. Just like the J-10, they evolve to 4.5th gen as they improve in later variants, which is fine. (On a side note, you might want to check the credibility of their respective supported sources for their justification that they are 4.5th gen fighters (They could be) but the sources are like links from news publications rather than say, for the J-10s case, a respective professor from RUSI (Bronk)). I guess I let you decide how you proceed with this checking.

In summary, my update of the opening paragraph is just to be in line with the two fighters mentioned and probably others (if they are also labelled as 4.5th gen in their later variants) so they are consitstent and follow the same format. I don't think you as a wikipedia contributor would like to see a situation where there is one rule for J-10 and another rule for JF-17/HAL Tejas.

If you think J-10 opening paragraph should stay labelled as 4th gen, then I think it is justified to also change the other two fighters opening paragraph to 4th gen.

I am happy and look forward to your views or if there is a alternative suggestion that you can provide where we can have consensus on this issue.

Final thoughts, regarding Loned accusations of me on Vandalism, this is false and incorrect on his side. In simple terms, vandalism is if you trash talk the topic page (J-10) at hand, which clearly I am not. I am presenting the update of the opening paragraph from 4th gen to 4.5th gen. This is a perfectly, reasonable and genuine request/amendment to the J-10 opening paragraph.

So I appreciate your below comments:

My feeling is that the admins won't see this as a matter requiring their intervention, at least at this time. There aren't that many relevant edits in the Special:Contributions/195.224.252.0/24 and Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01::/64 ranges. The most concerning and recent flare up is with the J-10 article which, aside from a bit of edit warring, is still within the bounds of a content dispute that should be resolved on the talk page (I guess I'm involved in that now too.) On that matter of the current content dispute, there may be quick and easy way out. Based on edit comments (eg. Special:Diff/1100020148, Special:Diff/1220743608) there seems to be a WP:AIR consensus to omit the whole generations thing from lede sections. Regrettably, I can't find where WP:AIR talked about it. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks with regards. 2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:1D4A:D550:AEED:D040 (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:WALLOFTEXT aside, Wikipedia articles are not acceptable for the purposes of WP:VERIFICATION (see WP:CIRCULAR.) Fourth-generation_fighter#4.5_generation fails to Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the claim that the J-10B is Gen4.5. Even if J-10B is Gen4.5, Gen4.5 is still part of Gen4, and the lede section of the J-10 article would still be acceptable.

Saying that, I am very much leaning toward removing the generation from the lede. (And no, just because mistakes remain in articles does not justify repeating those mistakes afresh in others.) I am going to dig a bit more to see if I can find where the WP:AIR consensus comes from. If I can't find it I'm going to accept the practice as an accepted convention and anybody who disagrees can take it up with WP:AIR. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think removing it altogether sounds better than leaving it as it is. I'll let you go dig what you need to dig and move from there. 2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:4171:8458:958E:3899 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk · contribs). Either keep the gen 4 in the leading section or remove it altogether.

2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:1D4A:D550:AEED:D040 (talk · contribs), although PAC JF-17 Thunder and HAL Tejas pages have 4.5 or whatever designation they have on their pages. Please note that's not the current consense or usual way of doing things in a myriad of aircraft articles on Wikipedia. If they are having a dick-measuring contest on how to add the .5 after the fourth generation, it's their problem. And I already accepted Bronks sources from you because as you can see, editors maintaining pages here are not stupid or unreasonable to perfectly valid reasons to add certain claims to where they belong.

However, using different IP addresses to edit Wikipedia is still not okay. I'd much rather prefer you to establish an actual account and talk with me in the talk page, instead of me having to escalate this to administrators. Wikipedia is an open platform, but we do have rules. Next time, prepare a source with a proper {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) template added, and leave a message to my talk page or the article talk page, then no one will revert your edit.-Loned (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, but just to clarify, I wasn't using different IP addresses to make contact. It just depends where I was at the time when making contact, ie. At office, home, coffee shop etc. 2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:4171:8458:958E:3899 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]