User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Please don’t remove my edit

[edit]

The HQ-19 will enter service with PAF in 2026. Please don’t remove my edit. واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do see my edit comment for the rationale. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 11:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should also look at “(will enter service in 2026)” واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry tonsay but with respect you need to do some understanding. Why i writed “will enter dervice with paf in 2026”? Because there is are lot of new outlets reporting that deliveries will start in 2026 of J-35A, HQ-19, KJ-500. واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no need to change my edit. My edit isn’t false. Do you have a problem with my edit? J-35A, KJ-500, HQ-19 all of them will enter service with PAF in 2026. So what.s the problem by writing it early? I writed that they will enter service in 2026. So yeah what’s the problem with it? واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan does not have the J-35 or the HQ-19 on order or in inventory, and so cannot be a user of them. This may change later; it is premature to note then as users now. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PAF pilots for J-35A are training in China, Pakistan says China offered and it bought HQ-19, KJ-500, J-35A. You need proof? I can give you. واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current operators is not for some time in the future. It is for right now. Come back and make your edits in a few years if/when these things are in Pakistan's inventory and being flown by Pakistan; as I said, this will need to be verified separately.
You need to be more patient. You are veering into WP:CRYSTALBALL. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, is there a problem for you if I write “future operator”? واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t own wikipedia. Everyone has the right to edit, not only you. واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan is my country and I from there. You’re not from Pakistan, so you don’t have to volunteer or worry about the information that is given about Pakistan Air Force. The information that I’m giving is true, I don’t care if you think it’s false. واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@واھید۱۲۳ See WP:VERIFY and WP:CRYSTALBALL
You previously said there is "proof", please show it.
Additionally, yes, everyone has the right to edit, but if you edits go against wikipedia guidelines then @RovingPersonalityConstruct absolutely has the right to revert you edits.
As for your last comment, WP:PROVEIT. If you can't show us the info is true, then the info can't be added(unless it's some common sense stuff, such as idk the FDNY is in New york or mongolia is north of china). Also, just that someone is not from pakistan does not make them more or less qualified to fix info on wikipedia(yes, a pakistani is more likely to understand info in their own language), and the fact you are adding the wrong information doesn't mean you are improve PAF related info, rather you are damaging articles with said info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you so worried, change “used by” to “user and future users” / “operators and future operators “ واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry if you minded but it’s my right to respond. واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If write instead of “used_by” “operators and future operators”: -> error واھید۱۲۳ (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template would need to be modified. And frankly it's not necessary. The intention to purchase and associated details up to the point where it actually enters service are or will be in the body of the article. As I said, patience. You're a few years too early for those edits. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Badly sourced info

[edit]

The article A-222 Bereg (artillery system) has tonnes of self published sources and WP:ARMYRECOGNITION. I already marked the article for having bad sources and tagged such sources(that I could identify), but may I ask if you could go check it out, and see if there are any more unreliable sources I have not identified yet, and also if there are any actually reliable sources that could be used. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic People's Liberation Army Rocket Force.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Nghtcmdr (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]