User talk: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.
Happy editing! BilCat (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
J-31
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I saw that you performed a large-scale removal of "J-31" from Shenyang J-35 for being a "misnomer". However, this source states that the designation "J-31B" originated from a promotional video that aired on China Central Television. For a misnomer, it sure is being promoted heavily by Chinese media. - ZLEA T\C 03:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The article is paywalled, but by going through the screenshot at the top of the SCMP article, you can clearly see that the aircraft is named as 鹘鹰飞机，meaning the 'Gyrfalcon aircraft'. The only thing mentioning about 'J-31B' is the egregious made 3D model, which if I have to guess is made by amateur that is not even from China.
- How do I come to this conclusion? Firstly and unsurprisingly, in China the J- suffix is spelled not using the 'J' latin alphabet but by using mandarin character 歼, so even if we want to take the existence of 'J-31B' at face value, it should've been written as 歼-31B.
- Furthermore, you can see the egregiousness from the 3D model itself, given how the creator decide to add side weapons bay to the aircraft, akin to the much larger J-20.
- And lastly, chinese state media isn't invincible to error. Just from this year Zhuhai airshow alone we already have them mistaken the Su-57 prototype as the J-35A (https://x.com/XHNews/status/1854753505191583773), which is why critical thinking and careful deduction within the chinese military observers should be exercised. Hope this clears it up for you. Lgnxz (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It absolutely does not clear it up, as it is entirely WP:OR. If you are unable to provide a reliable source directly discrediting the video or J-31 designation, then maybe you can try to seek consensus on the talk page to remove the J-31B from the article. Until then, you have no legitimate grounds for removal. - ZLEA T\C 05:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's not WP:OR simply by looking at the recent announcement of the J-35A (which is already cited in the page) as a proof that the J-31 or J-31B is not the official name of the aircraft that's adopted by the PLAAF or the PLANAF. You seem to not understand the significance of the J- suffix to an aircraft, so much so that thinking a 3D model in a video could be a justification to insinuate that somehow, somewhere, a FC-31 based aircraft with side weapons bay already exist and adopted alongside the J-35. Shouldn't your insistance to maintain older information also requires better proof than mere video to topple the recent announcement and actual appearance of the J-35A? Lgnxz (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. So far, none of the sources indicate that the J-31B from the video never existed or was intended to represent the recently announced J-35 and J-35A. Feel free to provide such sources if they exist. Until then, I will consider this matter closed. - ZLEA T\C 06:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Heh, let's see how long you will defend this J-31B thing as truly real then. Would be hilarious for the months and perhaps years to come, only to be finally corrected using the same argument that I've given to you.
- And as a final note on the absurdity, the J-31B is supposed to carry two missiles in each of its side weapons bay. This matter really is just a matter between an avid wikipedia fundamentalist quarrelling with me, occasional viewer of china military page that only edit stuffs with glaringly false information. Feel free to continue then, this already went way too long. Lgnxz (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- If I'm wrong, then I want you to correct me by providing reliable sources that discredit the existing sources. So far, that has not happened. - ZLEA T\C 07:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The existing sources you're looking for is already there in J-35 page, staring at you. The supposed 'J-31B' aircraft is also already flying, and its name is J-35A. It will perform so many flights in Zhuhai airshow, and no of course it doesn't have the illogical side weapon bays that can carry 2 missiles, a feat that's unachievable even on larger fighter jets like F-22 and J-20, nor such iteration of the FC-31 would even exist. But of course that's still not acceptable, and so I'm not gonna bother scouring the whole internet looking for sources that can satisfy you alone and 'correct' your own mistake. Do it yourself. Goodluck. Lgnxz (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
The existing sources you're looking for is already there in J-35 page, staring at you.
There are no such sources in the article claiming the J-31B and J-35A are the same variant. That is, once again, purely speculation and WP:OR.no of course it doesn't have the illogical side weapon bays that can carry 2 missiles, a feat that's unachievable even on larger fighter jets like F-22 and J-20, nor such iteration of the FC-31 would even exist.
Funny, I have yet to see a source for any of these claims either.I'm not gonna bother scouring the whole internet looking for sources that can satisfy you alone and 'correct' your own mistake. Do it yourself.
If you want to challenge reliable sources, the burden is on you to provide sources to counter it. You have repeatedly failed to do so despite me asking numerous times. Instead of looking for sources that probably don't exist, I'll look for more reliable sources that analyzed the SAC video and the J-31B since apparently SCMP is not the only one who thought the video was credible. If you are unable or unwilling to provide the sources I asked for, then I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your continued WP:OR has not and will not get you anywhere. - ZLEA T\C 14:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)- Heh, you're clearly unwell. I'm not gonna bother anymore with you. I'll see you in a couple of weeks in the J-35 page then, let's see if there are others willing to put the effort undoing all of your ignorant edits. Lgnxz (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The existing sources you're looking for is already there in J-35 page, staring at you. The supposed 'J-31B' aircraft is also already flying, and its name is J-35A. It will perform so many flights in Zhuhai airshow, and no of course it doesn't have the illogical side weapon bays that can carry 2 missiles, a feat that's unachievable even on larger fighter jets like F-22 and J-20, nor such iteration of the FC-31 would even exist. But of course that's still not acceptable, and so I'm not gonna bother scouring the whole internet looking for sources that can satisfy you alone and 'correct' your own mistake. Do it yourself. Goodluck. Lgnxz (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- If I'm wrong, then I want you to correct me by providing reliable sources that discredit the existing sources. So far, that has not happened. - ZLEA T\C 07:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. So far, none of the sources indicate that the J-31B from the video never existed or was intended to represent the recently announced J-35 and J-35A. Feel free to provide such sources if they exist. Until then, I will consider this matter closed. - ZLEA T\C 06:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's not WP:OR simply by looking at the recent announcement of the J-35A (which is already cited in the page) as a proof that the J-31 or J-31B is not the official name of the aircraft that's adopted by the PLAAF or the PLANAF. You seem to not understand the significance of the J- suffix to an aircraft, so much so that thinking a 3D model in a video could be a justification to insinuate that somehow, somewhere, a FC-31 based aircraft with side weapons bay already exist and adopted alongside the J-35. Shouldn't your insistance to maintain older information also requires better proof than mere video to topple the recent announcement and actual appearance of the J-35A? Lgnxz (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It absolutely does not clear it up, as it is entirely WP:OR. If you are unable to provide a reliable source directly discrediting the video or J-31 designation, then maybe you can try to seek consensus on the talk page to remove the J-31B from the article. Until then, you have no legitimate grounds for removal. - ZLEA T\C 05:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I'm ZLEA. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Calling someone you disagree with an "avid wikipedia fundamentalist" is not going to help your argument. ZLEA T\C 07:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ZLEA T\C 17:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope you can maintain the J-31B in the J-35 for years to come then. It will be a great contribution from you to keep preventing further misinformation or vandalization about the J-31B. Lgnxz (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Was this you?
[edit]An IP just removed the J-31B entry from the variants section without providing sources to counter the existing ones. Editing while logged out can be considered sockpuppetry if used inappropriately. If it was you, please don't do it again. - ZLEA T\C 17:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- No it wasn't me, as I had said I have no interest extending this topic with you. But goodluck defending the J-31B anyway, your paranoia would be very amusing for months to come as if every single people going against the existence of J-31B is just me making different accounts or IPs. Lgnxz (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ZLEA T\C 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)