User talk:Ao333

List_of_fighter_aircraft#First_generation_jet_fighters

Why does this now say "piston only" at the top of the section? This doesn't seem to make any sense. Exxolon (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because first generation aircraft is defined by the complete reliance of piston engines to travel at subsonic speed (second generation=super/sonic) as compared to propeller or hybrid propeller/piston propulsion systems used prior to the 1950s.--Ao333 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something. "First Generation Jet Fighters" means they have jet engines correct? Not piston engines. Exxolon (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, if that's the case then you would be excluding all 3+ gen aircraft which run mainly off of turbofans, with the only jet remnant being a nozzel.--Ao333 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Ao333! Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you created the Guizhou WS-13 article, which is great! If you're interested in continuing to contribute to aero-engine articles, I suggest you stop by the Aero Engine Task Force!.

Happy editing! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Chinese copy

Hello Ao333. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Chinese copy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Taking to AFD. Clearly this is a biased article in need of re-write, but it is not a hoax, and I don't feel it rises to the level of an attack on the entire Chinese manufacturing industry. Thank you. 7 03:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental validity of the page should be questioned. The term was not coined by any form of public media nor is the definition of the term appended with any source. The only sources one can see from the page are those of the example's, which do not even mentioned the term "Chinese Copy" on any occasion. Furthermore, judging from the page creator's history, this user has not even edited many pages, before creating one. I await your apply.Ao333 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and I think your comments are reasonable. I described this same point myself in the creation of the AFD. Could you please add your comments there. Thanks. 7 03:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "Foreign relations of the Republic of China"

The convention as stated is that either "Taiwan (Republic of China)" or "Republic of China (Taiwan)" may be used. However an informal convention is to use "Taiwan" for nonpolitical (not just geographic) stuff and "Republic of China" for political stuff related to the ROC government. However, the first use of "Republic of China" in each article is usually clarified as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) since many readers will confuse "Republic of China" with China. Readin (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in that "Taiwan" can be used informally. However, the page "Foreign relations of the Republic of China" is written highly in legal standards, therefore, formal. Your statment: "confuse 'Republic of China' with China" is flawed per se. People confuse "Republic of China" with "People's Republic of China," not just "China."Ao333 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny...

I thought you of all people knew that a user's talk page is their turf? Don't edit war over what users decide to put or keep on their talk pages (like you are on User_talk:Vedant), or you are out of line. GSMR (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the use of "you of all people" offensive. And please refrain from ordering me using words such as "Don't." We're living in a free country. User Vedant is in the wrong on page Foreign relations of the Republic of China as he or she clearly violated the official consensus on Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Chinese). Furthermore, please stop wasting my time by adding irrelevance to my talk page. After all, you did not even mention the contentious issue in question.Ao333 (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what 'issue' was at hand. Edit warring with another user over their own talk page is always belligerent, no matter how entitled you're convinced you are. GSMR (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it stems from the fact that you selectively delete talk page comments. Don't worry though, I realize you want to make your talk page easier to read so GSMR is doing a favour for you and keeping a past archive of your talk page for your easy reference! See how helpful the Wikipedia community is? On a less humorous note though, I suggest you refrain from reverting edits I make on my talk page because if you keep up this practice, it will most likely end up very unfortunately for you. That's not a threat, just a fact but interpret however you will. Vedant (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your time is important Ao333. There are still a lot of articles that one can vandalize out there! Regardless, if you'd like I can remove this entry from your talk page but it will unfortunately show up in the page history. ~~Oh also, if you're feeling bored you can always edit on www.defence.pk~~ My mistake, I didn't realize you were banned from that site. Let me suggest some creative user names under which you can re-register; Ao331, Ao332, Ao334, Ao335, Ao336 and Ao337 and Shen333. Vedant (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is not a forum. I am troubled by your obsession in tracing others' off-site activities. Sadly, I do not have the same time and leisure for you.Ao333 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, truth be told I couldn't care less about you. I just find your offsite edits humorous and if you continue to edit as you have, well... let's just say I'm more than happy to hand you the rope. :) Vedant (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth generation jet fighter

Ao333 u have added J-10 as Chinese in front page .Please do not add such thing as if Chinese aircraft is added then why not India,Pakistan,France,Japanese,Republic of China,United Kingdom/ Italy/ Germany are added.As u could see a big war for Aircraft pic in front will start,So plz do not the J-10 pic.F-16 is there because produced in large no(500+) and first to use "relaxed static stability" (RSS), was made possible by introduction of the "fly-by-wire" (FBW) flight control system (FLCS). Image of the Eurofighter and Tejas remains becuase they shows in group and size in compare and do not forget F-16 also there present in next to each other.--59.94.132.93 (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U have again added J-10 in front page pic . Can care to explain why J-10 should be there which new tech/Future tech or new tech has that that it so capable to be placed in fornt pic along F-16.--59.94.132.93 (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removing of "Chinese" but the picture was initially there but removed by someone from your country. 1) India and Pakistan do not have an indigenous 4th generation aircraft in service. 2) You can add France if you wish. 3) Republic of China sourced many of the manufacturing of their plane to the United States. 4) The UK+Germany+Italy only have one plane -- the Eurofighter. 5) The F-35, Eurofighter and F-15E was not (is not) "500+," and we do not live in the future. 6) The J-10 is not the Su-27SK fighter. You have it mixed up with the J-11A.Ao333 (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For ur info care check F-CK-1,Mirage 2000,F-14,F-15,and F/A-18,FC-1,MiG-29,Su-27.Should i have add them . Thing how page will look . If you want u add them(J-10) by creating a gallery at bottom. --59.94.145.26 (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The F-CK-1 was jointly manufactured by the United States and Republic of China 2) I already said you can add French ones if you want. 3) The F-14+15+18+MiG-29+Su-27 are already on the page. 4) FC-1 is jointly manufactured by China and Pakistan 5) Your English is poor. Please take some time when writing.Ao333 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a gallery to settle matter. So by your logic as per F-CK-1 it should also apply to J-10 as contains Russian parts like engine, any way F-CK-1 is real fighter jet so i have it in gallery. F-15E only cockpit pic is present in page and i will add it later . F-2 is also added there along Mirage-2000 .If can find them at bottom in gallery section.--59.94.145.26 (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you got any pic of J-10 with any 4th gen aircraft for comparative image like image of the Eurofighter and Tejas and F-16 remains. And did you got any pic of J-10 in a Exercise like Su-30.Both pic are there for a reason. You should try more open comment rather than close for India .Sorry i felt that by reading ur comment like "(If you are going to do so, please remove the "Aero India" and the "Indian Su-33MKK" Images." Aero India is one of the largest Aero show and Indian Su-30 took part in Cope India,I will not revert your edit until this matter is solved. --59.94.130.26 (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. The J-10 was replaced by pictures of Indian planes by user: 59.94.128.224 who is from India. This leads me to think as to why he or she did so. Both the Su-27 and 30 are Russian. The F-2 and F-CK-1 are Japan/United States and Republic of China/United States co-produced planes. They are representative of American jets, not planes from Japan or Republic of China (Taiwan). Both the J-10 and Tejas are equipped with foreign engines, thus not fully indigenous. Even some parts of the Typhoon is subcontracted to the United States. If you wish to remove planes, then remove all except for American/Russian planes.Ao333 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, image was removed by Vedant you see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_generation_jet_fighter&action=historysubmit&diff=366109426&oldid=365861398. Secondly,F-2 was made so that Japan can develop their industry as china did with Russia in case of Su-27 and i have not added F-CK-1 in the gallery could see it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_generation_jet_fighter&oldid=367174141#Gallery. Thirdly you are correct J-10 and Tejas are equipped with foreign engines until 2010. So Gallery creation is good idea .For Aero India And Su-30 image obligation in respected section refer to previous comment.--59.94.130.26 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every country has its own Air Show. The Chinese have Zhuhai, the UAE has its own. It does not justify anything. I do not understand your argument. Why should J-10 (Vedant is also from India) be removed while images of Aero India and "Indian Su-20MKK" stay? I do not know why you keep bringing up F-2 and F-CK-1 because both of them have poorer peformance than Mirage 2000. The aero industries of Japan and Republic of China (Taiwan) were not propped up by the project as neither islands can produce commericial indigenously nor fighters without American assistance. And I do not think the WS-10A or Kaveri will be ready before 2012. Ao333 (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, many country have Air show but is there any pic in which 3 or more aircraft of fourth gen present. EF,F-16 and tejas all can be view for size(compare). Su-30 pic is not there without reason .Exercise reports section talks about Cope India,Indra-Dhanush exercise and various other so Su-30 is correctly place with section. Do you got any pic for Performance of 3 or more aircraft of fourth gen and for Exercise reports of other aircraft that is mentioned in section. --59.94.132.82 (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, if we are not in a hot war, all take-offs are in exercise. I do not see your point.Ao333 (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both pics are placed there after lot of search on wiki . OK if u got F-101 engine section in a article then you will put F-101 pic in that section. Same way Performance section got its pic as it shows many 4th gen jet and Exercise reports got Su-30 pic in prefect with Cope India description .--59.94.134.5 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC) If u like to put a J-10 pic in any section then put it in Avionics section as there 2 pics of Su family in the article . And hope this solve your problem. IRST sensors of J-10 is most suitable as it will diversify the article and gave J-10 a pic as per ur wish.--59.94.134.5 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frigate

You may want to look on the frigate article at Vedant's Indian POV. 88.106.115.235 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian POV pushing

I thought you might be interested to know there has been a recent rise in Indian nationalist users pushing POV on India related articles and anti-China and anti-Pakistan sentiment on many other articles over the past couple of months or so. Many are adding original research and Indian nationalist POV to articles and some appear to be pushing the fallacious notion that India is a great power or even a superpower. Articles worth taking a look at to see this recent rise in Indian jingoism are India, Indian Air Force, Indian Navy, Fighter Aircraft, Indian Armed Forces, Arjun (tank), HAL Tejas, Arihant class submarine, Frigate, Ballistic Missile Submarine, BrahMos, Nuclear Submarine, Cruise Missile, Destroyer, Main battle tank, Blue water navy and Defence Research and Development Organisation. One of the most problematic users is user:Bcs09, who is a sock of banned user:Chanakyathegreat, who was renowned and banned for his disruptive POV pushing. Bcs09 regularly adds original research which is POV and Indian nationalism to many of the articles I listed above and to many other India related articles. Bcs09 also regularly edits behind a changing IP within the 59.94.xxx.xxx range which is located in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. Bcs09 is greatly supported by user:Vedant, another Indian POV pusher, only milder and not so stupid as Bcs09. I believe Bcs09 is only able to propagate his Indian POV across Wikipedia because his edits are protected by Vedant. Vedant has a nasty habit of trying to get those who oppose Bcs09 banned, like he did to user:By78 amongst others. I hope you find this information useful in helping to combat the rise in Indian POV pushing. Ulroo (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:J-20 Fighter Jet.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:J-20 Fighter Jet.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Possibly unfree File:J-20 Fighter Jet.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J-20 Fighter Jet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:TianShan.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TianShan.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]