Lgnxz
Welcome! edit
Hi Lgnxz! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Aircraft carriers, etc. edit
Hi, I see that you're a relatively inexperienced user here, but just the same, surely you realize that just because you found the same ref on the type 75 page, was not a reason to re-add it to the carrier list page. In fact, what you should've done was remove it from the type 75 page as well. An unreliable source is just that, regardless of what page it's on. - wolf 00:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: What are you even talking about? The forbes citation that you just removed in that page is not my doing, my references come from The Diplomat and Naval News, both are considered to be reliable source. Also since you've been quite experienced in editing wikipedia, do you really think that removing the whole ship completely from the page rather than just change the citation to a reliable one is a responsible behavior? It's been almost a whole year that the 3rd type 075 LHD is under construction, a well-known process for everyone who pays attention to the PLAN's procurement. Given your conduct here I must assume that you clearly do not know what you are doing. Lgnxz (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I removed an unreliable source. You reverted it back in. I again removed the unreliable source and where it was in prose, I added a cite needed tag, where it was the sole ref supporting an individual entry, I removed the entry as unsupported. We are encouraged to clean up pages, we are not permitted to add unsupported content and we under no obligation to add or update content. Look to your own actions before complaining about others. Now, I think we're done here. Have a nice day. - wolf 01:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild:No we are not done. I actually recheck the forbes link that you just removed, and it even shows you the satellite photo of the ship being constructed in the drydock, how is this considered to be not good enough? I also visited the wikipedia WP:RSP that you cite as an excuse to remove the ship, and it clearly shows that forbes as a whole is considered to be a reliable source, in addition to the content of this specific article that already provided you with a proof beyond any doubt. How can you fairly justify your action there, since you also didn't give any reason of why the specific citation is deprecated? Lgnxz (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, RSP says Forbes the magazine is a reliable source. Forbes.com however is only considered reliable if the article is written by a staff writer. The writer of the articles you are so vehemently arguing for is only a "contributor" (and a "former" at that!), and so they fail RSP. Also, do you really think we can post content because some website somewhere claims to have a picture of it? You can't use the image itself (for numerous reasons) and since you can't cite the article that contains the image, you can't add content based on said image. Now, wouldn't this time be better spent finding more reliable sources? I think so. - wolf 02:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild:No we are not done. I actually recheck the forbes link that you just removed, and it even shows you the satellite photo of the ship being constructed in the drydock, how is this considered to be not good enough? I also visited the wikipedia WP:RSP that you cite as an excuse to remove the ship, and it clearly shows that forbes as a whole is considered to be a reliable source, in addition to the content of this specific article that already provided you with a proof beyond any doubt. How can you fairly justify your action there, since you also didn't give any reason of why the specific citation is deprecated? Lgnxz (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I removed an unreliable source. You reverted it back in. I again removed the unreliable source and where it was in prose, I added a cite needed tag, where it was the sole ref supporting an individual entry, I removed the entry as unsupported. We are encouraged to clean up pages, we are not permitted to add unsupported content and we under no obligation to add or update content. Look to your own actions before complaining about others. Now, I think we're done here. Have a nice day. - wolf 01:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Astra Mk3 edit
Hai I would like to talk about this edit [1] you made, It's not my prediction, actually Astra Mk.3 is already tested, it's a ramjet powered missile now called Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet, It's designed as an extremely long range air to air missile comparable to the Meteor (missile), with a projected range of 350 km. [2]. It's weird that they tested Mk.3 variant (prototype) before Mk.2. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Echo1Charlie: I see no reason to simply single out the mark 3 missile that still hasn't even enter service yet. Judging from the naming convention it's very likely that despite (assuming that what you've said is correct, still weird nonetheless) the mark 3 being tested before the mark 2, this ramjet missile is still going to come out of the dark later than the mark 2. Going back to the PL-15 article, the edited section talks about 'similar weapons'. What makes you think that the whole family of that missile is incomparable to PL-15? They are all BVRAAM, and from what I've seen it's actually the mark 2 that has the most similarity given its apparent usage of dual-pulse motor as well. I didn't completely remove the astra missile but rather change it to encompass the whole family of that missile, which given my two reasonings above, seems logical instead of just mentioning the mark 3. - Lgnxz (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- "They are all BVRAAM" - so do Astra with present 110km range. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Echo1Charlie: Exactly so what's your point here?? Why are you messaging me for removing the still non-existent astra mark 3 that would only and probably come out years later in the future and changing it to just include the whole astra missile family? It feels like you're just getting annoyed at me for no reason at all. - Lgnxz (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Lgnxz No no, the purpose of this post was only to let you know that it's actually tested unlike mk2, as I misread your edit summary "the mark 2 version of the missile itself is still in development, let alone mark 3" — that you think mk2 isn't a reality (still in drawing board, it is) so do the mk3. Sorry for the confusion caused, Have a nice day.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Echo1Charlie: Exactly so what's your point here?? Why are you messaging me for removing the still non-existent astra mark 3 that would only and probably come out years later in the future and changing it to just include the whole astra missile family? It feels like you're just getting annoyed at me for no reason at all. - Lgnxz (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- "They are all BVRAAM" - so do Astra with present 110km range. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message edit
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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)