|
Welcome!
Hello, Loned, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Han purple and Han blue into Purple. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from High-speed rail in Turkey into Ankara–Istanbul high-speed railway. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You made this edit to AVIC Dark Sword where you attribute the development from the 601-S to this military.china.com article.
Could you indicate which part of the source article supports the attribution and provide a translation of that part? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like I put the reference in the wrong sentence. I was trying to use the citation as a source for the Chinese name "暗剑" in the heading. I will move it to the correct place. The source itself was moved here from the original AVIC 601-S page. -Loned (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HI, in this edit to People's Liberation Army Air Force Airborne Corps you introduced an sfn reference "International Institute for Strategic Studies 2021". Unfortunately you did not define it, which means that nobody can look the reference up and also addes the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix it that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, somehow I didn’t bring this over when I moved it from the PLAAF page. Loned (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason I shouldn't move this to just PL-10, with a redirect from PL-ASR, since there's nothing else titled PL-10 to disambiguate from? I figured I should check with you before moving this since you seem to know more about this subject than I do.
Also, an obligatory warning: you shouldn't cut-and-paste move articles, like you did in May 2022 from LY-60 / FD-60 / PL10 to HQ-6. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestion, originally PL-10 was redirected to LY-60 / FD-60 / PL10, I only modified it to the current PL-10 (ASR). Your suggestion makes sense and the redirection should be in the other direction.
- As to why that wasn’t the case. The PL-10 (ASR) was not created by me, but by someone else from an old, incorrect assumption that the HQ-6 air defense system is called PL-10. First, they created the LY-60 / FD-60 / PL10 article due to the assumption, and in the early 2010s, some editor found out PL-10 is actually another missile, so they created PL-10 (ASR) (also called PL-ASR). Those old editors from early 2010s loved to use Chinese websites or military forums as references, so the source reliability was pretty mediocre and mistake like this happened. When I started to clean up these articles, everything was a mess.
- Also, sorry about the redirection to HQ-6. The original HQ-6 was a redirect page targeting the old LY-60 / FD-60 / PL-10 page. I reversed the redirection, basically make LY-60 / FD-60 / PL-10 be the redirect page, targeting HQ-6. Maybe I should’ve called administrator on that one, as I didn’t know this counts as "move". It’s the same deal as reversing the current redirect relationship between PL-10 and PL-10 (ASR). If you know the proper way to do it, please contact admin for me because I don’t know where to request this sort of maneuver.
Loned (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And WP:RMTR is the venue you are looking for for future reference. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Loned (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Autocomplete you included material that appears to have been copied from Chinese typewriter. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of our license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance, but it's not my job to clean up after you. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry forgot about that one.-Loned (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please include the author when creating citations. Just making the effort to identify the author would probably also help to avoid unreliable sources, like when using works from social media platforms which would normally be regarded as WP:BLOGS/WP:USERG. Things are a bit more involed than just "add source". - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally only website/defense journals like Janes and Naval News provide their authors. Smaller think tanks that have a track record of providing correct information but lack page authors including Army Technology, Global Security, Weapons Systems, etc, which I cannot provide.
- I usually don't use them but sometimes they are the only correct source. I typically only use them when major defense journals don't cover the topic. I’ve seen your edit, and I want to add that from a credibility and reliability perspective, weaponsystem.net is better than Army Technology, which included many instances of copying works from Wikipedia. Weaponsystem.net wrote its one stuff and usually translates weapon specs from Russian/Chinese sources.
- Just like in the past, you told me you don't like Naval News but I think they are reliable, The fundamental problem is that there are very few discussions about defense publications on Wikipedia so it usually falls to the discretion of the editor. It would be great if there is some sort of standard. -Loned (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So concerning using Sina. I look at Sina and see that most of their content is republished from other sources (many of those which provide names of authors and editors.) Then there are opinion pieces (which seem to be explicitly attributed to their contributors.) And then there are original pieces attributed to Sina without identifying the authors. So from the start, Sina does not strike me as an organization with notable in-house expertise, otherwise they would not be republishing so much. The lack of identification for the contributors of their original pieces (in stark contrast with other publishers) does nothing to support that they are notable personalities or experts in the fields that they write in. All in all, this is on very shaky ground where reliability is concerned.
The "best" way to use those Sina pieces is to only use parts that have been attributed to other reliable sources (explicit attribution in the article body may be required to be safe) and ignore everything else. At that point, there's not much point in using Sina. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sina is one of the oldest web portals/news aggregator sites in China, akin to Yahoo News or Business Insider. They publish news from other websites and news agencies while occasionally producing/commissioning original content under their own editorial, which I find useful to validate information on military-related topics (and sometimes, this is the only way because similar information only exists in defense-watching forums). Nevertheless, your concerns regarding blogging on Sina are valid, under a certain context. From the early 2010s to 2017-ish, Sina, Sohu, Baidu, etc, web portals in China allowed users to submit "independent news" on their platforms. These users often have social media-like profiles while posing as news sources. However, this has been increasingly rare as the Chinese government cracked down and censored the blogging/independent reporting.[1] I would definitely avoid these articles. Overall, I would treat Sina as any WP:SYNDICATED news source (such as Yahoo News) under Wikipedia policy, i.e., we need to verify articles on a case-to-case basis at discretion. Personally, my priority is always reputable English sources from think tanks or news organizations. I use Chinese sources as the last resort when the information is written under reliable authorship.[2]-Loned (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC) Loned (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bandai Namco Shanghai Base is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandai Namco Shanghai Base until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. IgelRM (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DJI, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andriod.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shenyang J-35, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canopy.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added multiple sources for KLJ-5A AESA radar for J-20. Do not revert. -Canberra2021 (talk)
- Canberra2021 (talk · contribs), the sources you provided are not suitable for Wikipedia. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/06/11/nriet-type-1475-klj-5-aesa-radar-for-j-20-fighters-the-russian-kret-assisted-china-with-mig-35s-zhuk-ame-technology/ The globaldefensecorp is an unnamed blog, with no reference provided inside the article to support the claim. In fact, simple online searching from other aviation blogs, which references the same picture, https://airpowerasia.com/2020/08/15/chengdu-j-20-overhyped-or-reality-a-comprehensive-story/ , points out that there's no official information about the J-20's radar and the transmitter module number ranges differently.
- Eurasian Times is a website with a notorious reputation. It often contains extremely obvious exaggerations, speculation, editorialized titles, and unsourced information. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/cracks-in-j-20s-stealth-with-no-buyers-exposure/ This source also combines two conflicting pieces of information together. It combines the KLJ-5 radar name with 2000-2200 transmitter module, which is established in other sources as "unknown". So your own source provided contradict each other.
- SP's Avaiation contains Template:Circular reference, in which it specially says it got the data from Wikipedia. Check out the link you provided: https://www.sps-aviation.com/story/?id=2854&h=J-20-of-PLAAF-and-JF-17-of-PAF-Analysed, underneath the "Specifications of JF-17 and J-20" the source it uses is the "Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20 (as on September 20, 2020)" Wikipedia does not allow the usage of [circular reference], and publications doing so is deemed not trustworthy.
- If there's no concert evidence for something, we can just leave it blank. we do not need to jump to the conclusion. -Loned (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- China does not release information like the other countries do unless you see something in propaganda videos. Do you have official confirmation that J-20 has DAS, but you added some weird website reference about EOTS. It is evident that China used KLJ-5A series radar in J-20. Why do you want to leave it blank for speculation or something. China does not release information about military. China does not have public scrutiny or oversight on manufacturer. Either you mention that an AESA will be added, currently don't exist or KLJ-5A. Canberra2021 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument has nothing to do with the validity of the reference itself. The J-20 article contains many speculations that the Chinese government will not release, however, these speculations need to come from reputable sources, such as notable magazines, aviation-related think tanks, etc. The article contains sources such as this article from Popular Science: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a28436/chinas-stealth-fighter-is-operational/, or this article from The War Zone: https://www.twz.com/22534/high-quality-shots-of-unpainted-chinese-j-20-stealth-fighter-offer-new-capability-insights. Or this article from Aviation Week https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/face-it-chinas-j-20-fifth-generation-fighter . They all talked about DAS on the J-20. You can access these articles using the Internet archive. Note: These websites also use speculative language, however, they are reliable sources without any editorialized titles, and use careful language and expert references, thus their speculation on the Chinese military is more authoritative than something like Euraisn Times or SP's Aviation, which has obvious MOS violation that cannot be used as reference.
- China also have multiple unknown AESA radars which we don't know the name of. Chengdu J-10C, Shenyang J-11, Shenyang J-15, Shenyang J-16. For example, in J-16 article, the sources say the fighter says AESA, but nobody specified the actual radar model because we simply don't know. So we don't add them.
- Most references on the articles were vetted by other editors. Two sources for the DAS section clearly state the aircraft could have/or have a passive electro-optical detection system that will provide 360° coverage, which is DAS. More references can be added (as I mentioned above), but they were not added because wikipedia also have rules on excessive ref. Bottom line, no matter what you say about "public scrutiny or oversight on manufacturer", what you add needs to come from reputable sources at least at the level of The War Zone or Popular Mechanics, not something like SP's Aviation, which basically copy-paste Wikipedia.-Loned (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
