User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Pakistan Air Force

[edit]

Hi there, I noticed that you have reverted my edits on Pakistan Air Force, one of the reasons that you have mentioned is that my citations are mixed; actually, what I did was I cited all the citations altogether at the end of the line, I will definitely work on it and will be more specific. Another reason you have mentioned is that I have used my personal writings to support my edits but that is not the case. I have used articles of authentic and independent organizations which are specialized in military things. Most of the famous news channels do not have adequate and technical knowledge to support or even write about military. The sources that I had cited included both, well-known news organizations as well as these military organizations. And I have used X, Instagram or Facebook accounts of verified and governmental organizations i.e. I used dgpr_paf posts, which is a government organization. M. Umar Usman 6 (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOGS does not mean you wrote it. It means the source is written by - as far as can be determined by the information provided about the author - a self-proclaimed expert; a reputable source typically explicitly identifies the author, and provides some indication of what credentials they have. (For example, Pakistan Strategic Forum seems devoid of this information. And Aviation Geek Club is a explicitly a blog of enthusiasts; see their about page.) It doesn't help that you're also using WP:BAREURLS.
As another note: individuals who aren't analysts speaking for themselves and getting signal-boosted is just noise (like this.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 06:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

H/PJ-26 76 mm naval gun WP:OR

[edit]

I saw your post on Nafis Fuad Ayon's talk page, and it reminded me of a similar case of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH at Shenyang J-35 (see this discussion). I think a pattern is beginning to emerge. - ZLEA T\C 07:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZLEA: they certainly seem to have difficulties - of some sort, degree, or another - with VERIFY, RS, and CITE. I'm keeping an eye on what comes out next from their [[|User:Nafis Fuad Ayon/sandbox|sandbox]]; it's looking familiarly lackluster at the moment. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 22:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Report

[edit]

2 dudes are edit warring on the J-35 page. Thought that it may be of interest for you. KashanAbbas (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Operational History' section I began to add for the Type 055 destroyer.

[edit]

Hello

I was wondering why you reverted my edit on the Type 055 destroyer page. Was it because it lacked source citation? If I cite sources for my inputs, would you allow the 'Operational History' section to stay?

Most every wikipedia page on military equipment have sections for 'Operational History', so I thought that the Type 055 should do as well.

--Definitelyfrank (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Definitelyfrank (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove it because of the lack of verification. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evader at Paramount leader?

[edit]

Guy that keeps editing the dates appears to have done it again. This the same guy? Admanny (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect so. Good catch. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]