User talk:An Asphalt

April 2022

Hello, I'm FoxtAl. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of active Pakistan Air Force aircraft have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. FoxtAl (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FoxtAl. Your recent edit(s) to the page List of active Pakistan Air Force aircraft appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is your second warning. Please refrain, else you would be reported admin panel. Thank you FoxtAl (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of active Pakistan Air Force aircraft, you may be blocked from editing. Please don't edit Wikipedia with WP:SPS such as Quwa.org, also don't remove citation and add factual errors like you did here [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_Pakistan_Air_Force_aircraft&diff=1082468434&oldid=1082453358 ]. Also note that if you add a source to back up your claim, the source added should "clearly" state the claim; else your edit would be counted as WP:OR which is not encouraged on Wikipedia. I hope you understand. Happy editing. FoxtAl (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hi. This edit summary worries me, An Asphalt. Are you saying that Indian sources (with WP:NOENG in mind) are inherently non-credible? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree Hi.

Regarding that edit summary, Indian sources are usually biased against Pakistan and their news is sometimes even based on baseless sources. This bias has already been proved a number of times. Please feel free to cite any neutral source.

Regards An Asphalt (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so this is about the country, not the language. In this case, using "Indian" as an opposite of "credible" is also problematic, with counter-examples such as The Indian Express and The Wire (India) being green at WP:RSP. I understand your concern that there may be many Indian sources lacking reliability, especially about topics that are politically contentious involving India, but the way you had phrased your concern seems to oversimplify the matter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Where is the mention of 144kn ab thrust of ws-10B engine,in this citation which is given by you. Dl ff (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the entire video carefully. An Asphalt (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is at 3:39 min An Asphalt (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You blindly removed my changes from Al -zarrar tank ,go and read sources, there is no mention of 750 (tank), source no.1 mentioned there are 320 units were produced as of 2012,The second source claiming 500 building as of 2021-22.type -59 has different page where it's mentioned 'pakistan operating 600 t-59 tanks' don't mix it. Dl ff (talk) 12:06, 25 July 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 List of equipment of the Pakistan Army, you may be blocked from editing. Technopat (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat What did I remove without explanation now? An Asphalt (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, in which you removed reliably sourced content and substituted if for random figures. --Technopat (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat Random figures? Every single number was cited, heck even some numbers have 2 or 3 citations but this dude comes and changes everything according to "IISS 2023". The thing is that you can't change everything based on one source especially when it's cited. An Asphalt (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The references you refer to are from 2002. The new, reliably cited content is from 2023. If you insist that "your" reference is in some way valid, it can be included as additional data figures, but not at the expense of deleting a perfectly valid source. --Technopat (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat There are a lot of things that were changed based on a single citation not to mention, even the things that have citations as recent as 2023. Not every reference is from 2002 but whatever...... An Asphalt (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat Aren't you going to do anything about the content which had perfectly valid and recent citations like the SH-15 howitzers now? An Asphalt (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I have inadvertently removed any reliably sourced content, you are, of course, welcome to restore it. However, I remind you wikis are not reliable sources. And, as I pointed out above, you are free to add alternative data to existing content, even if it's contradictive. Sources often vary and WP:NPOV reflects that. Again, what's important is the reliability of the source. --Technopat (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a one source'for number of Al zarrar tanks, may be it's reliable source, atleast than previous sources.

https://pakstrategic.com/features-of-al-zarrar-main-battle-tank-of-pakistan-army/

visit this source if it's reliable than cite it Or if you have more reliable sources than cite those sources. Dl ff (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Technopat, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Technopat (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Technopat Personal attacks? I was talking to that Indian guy making nationalistic edits. Do you know how many Pakistani articles have been attacked by him? Then if someone reverts them, he goes to the mods. If this is not desperation, than I don't know what is. An Asphalt (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia." If you continue making derogatory remarks about other users, I shall request a block, as per the above warning. --Technopat (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

you are blindly undoing my changes,if there are 750 tanks are produced than give source and cite it,the tank is still in production it doesn't mean 750 tanks are in service,the given source contains number of 500 so it should be on main page,and I also gave the one source of 2021Y, there are 1100(t-59/al zarrar) tanks are in service of pakistani army it's mentioned in many reliable sources,out of them 600 are t-59 and 500 Al zarrar,if there 750 al zarrar produced than there are 350 type-59 tanks are in service.Don't just undo my changes without reliable citations, otherwise I will complaint you. Dl ff (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol An Asphalt (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pak army equipment'page

why you're just again and again undoing all changes,100 t-55 tanks which are received by pak from serb. are mentioned in given source,but there is no mention of 336 active t-55 tanks even pakistan never ever operated more than 50 t-55 tanks after 2010(I have two source's where it's mentioned'pakistan retired t-55 tanks,but I am still waiting for more reliable sources ),if you have any source with the mention of 236,active T-55(236 Old + 100 received = 336),than cite it,if you don't have any reliable citation than don't undo changes. Dl ff (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In (pak. Ar.equ.) there are many numbers of weapons which are not cited,even many cited numbers are not based on given citation, someone just put random number and random citation.I am requesting you for citing this article with reliable sources otherwise anyone will change data with unreliable sources, because there is no citation not reliable nor unreliable. Dl ff (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

Dear an asphalt, It is true that I have made many edits on pages related to Pakistan, but there is no edit that I have done without citation, nor I have attacked pages related to Pakistan. I've always said that if you have more reliable and updated sources you can undo all the changes I've made, I've never had a problem with that. Dl ff (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello An Asphalt! Your additions to CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Regarding that sentence, I didn't add it in the first place, I just corrected it without knowing that it violated the copyright protocols.

Thank you. An Asphalt (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

25 September 2023

Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you changed the numbers and labels in the infobox of the an article on the Pakistan Navy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. When you make these kinds of edits you need to include citations to reliable sources. Have a look at referencing for beginners.

The infobox is meant to be a quick summary of the article (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes). So it would help if you added information to the relevant sections of the body of the article at about the same time as you changed the infobox. But please remember that even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it (see Wikipedia:Verifiability).

If you want to discuss your proposed edits, please do so at Talk:Pakistan Navy. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1 Hello, the changes I made are all in line with the article List of active Pakistan Navy ships. All of these numbers are already cited there, so I think it just needed corrections here and not a whole new citation. The source is basically another Wikipedia article itself. An Asphalt (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source. The reason for this is policy that anyone can an introduce an error into one of them. We do not want that error propagating through other articles. If an error does get propagated, that other articles have the same error then becomes a "justification" for the original error. This is explained at WP:CIRC.

You need to provide a citation, and to check that the citation really does support your changes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now, how am I supposed to change the information in the infobox since there is no citation describing the entire fleet of Pakistan Navy other than that Wikipedia article. Should I cite three to five different sources just to change a number?

Now I understand this policy but like I said, every single number is credibly cited in the article. An Asphalt (talk) 11:20, 25 September 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JF 17

Hello, You are spreading misinformation and propaganda. The sources you mentioned do not conform the claims you made. if you continue to vandalise without providing reliable sources for claims you made, You will be reported Johnsmit2340987 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnsmit2340987 lol An Asphalt (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you redo the number of aircraft in Azerbaijan as operators. It can be clearly seen in Azerbaijani Air Forces article that Azerbaijan operates 14 aircraft with 50 more on order, these numbers are backed up by a reliable source. Check the article yourself. Correct me if I'm wrong. Syed Ayan Ather (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Syed Ayan Ather Well, if you didn't know, then let me tell you the numbers in Azerbaijani Air Forces article are not backed up by any source and were randomly put in by an editor. If you have any doubts you can check the edit history of the said article. An Asphalt (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Capitals00 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alert for the topic area covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Capitals00 (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above alert is invalid because you didn't receive proper first alert about CTOP before, which I give you now below. --Stylez995 (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Stylez995 (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits on Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle

Hello, I've reverted your removal of sourced content from the Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle article. While you did expand on your reasoning via the talk page, unfortunately the sources do not support the claim you're making -- there is a significant difference between a warhead being *deployed*, which is what the article claims; and a nation developing and testing one. As the article is explicitly referring to nations that have *deployed* a MIRV, not just tested one, I've reverted your change as it involved blanking of reliably sourced content. If you can provide a reliable source that shows Pakistan has actually deployed a MIRV operationally, we could include that then. Additionally, please note that demanding other editors not revert your content is against our policies -- you do not own the article and must assume good faith in other editors behavior, particularly if they are utilizing the bold, revert, discuss process. Thank you for your consideration. ⇒SWATJester ^Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

ICUBE is a payload just like other payloads on change-6, and also its not what I think even sources say that cnsa is operating it.If its a Pakistani mission it should be operated by Pakistan.Its just a payload made by suparco not a separate mission by it.So,please counter fact rather than warning me.If you want than discuss it on article's talk page.Thanks.User:Edasf (talk).

@User:Edasf First of all, it doesn't matter if it is "payload". The fact of the matter is, it's a Pakistani payload. Look at South Korea's Danuri probe; it was a "payload" on Falcon 9 just like ICUBE-Q; and it's considered a separate mission. Second, are you trying to imply that a Pakistani probe is operated by CNSA by adding a random and questionable source? CNSA only operated it initially till the deployment just like any other international payload would be. After deployment, the control is transferred to the respective space agencies.. User:An Asphalt (talk)

@User: An Asphalt Provide a source which say it that SUPARCO really operates as its pure speculation.And actually Danuri was just launched using falcon 9 and South Korea operated it which isn't with ICUBE and please before reverting discuss it on talk page.I dont think I have done any vandalism so please remove my name from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalismUser:Edasf (talk)

@User:Edasf There is no rule or law that says that your launch should be a sole payload to be considered as your mission. You are just making up stuff at this point. Payload or independent launch, it doesn't change the fact that it's a Pakistani payload. Also here is a source that is not one off like you are providing as multiple sites have reported it. It says "IST will conduct tests". Now obviously IST is a research university and cannot directly contro the satellite. It is obvious that those tests would be done through the national space agency i.e SUPARCO. Like I said CNSA had a minimal role, that too till the deployment.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2465687/pakistans-icube-q-satellite-successfully-enters-lunar-orbit%3famp=1

User:An Asphalt (talk)

@User:Edasf I removed your name from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism long ago since the second point you raised was genuine but I hope I have addressed it.

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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]