User talk:BoeingEngineer

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, BoeingEngineer! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello BoeingEngineer. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Boeing Commercial Airplanes, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:BoeingEngineer. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=BoeingEngineer|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mys 721tx. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Type 052D destroyer, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mys_721tx (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Type 052D destroyer, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mys_721tx (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have credible references. post them!

Can you stop removing multiple references that all state the same contents? BoeingEngineer (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Type 052D destroyer, you may be blocked from editing. Daily Mail is deprecated and can only be use as a reference to itself. Mys_721tx (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 references.

You need to stop removing them, since you are the one that is disruptive editing here. BoeingEngineer (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the reliable reference check list you provided.

The Euro Asian Times is not listed as unreliable, thus should be accepted. BoeingEngineer (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absence from this list does not imply reliability or the lack thereof. Mys_721tx (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does not mean that you can simply delete sourced material.

They are referenced content. If you have references that state otherwise, do it.

Thank you. BoeingEngineer (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Being sourced is not sufficient for inclusion in the article. Based on the sources, those assertions are from "two Chinese military observers". At best, these statements must be attributed as opinions. They should never be presented as facts as you did in the infobox. Mys_721tx (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello BoeingEngineer! Your additions to Main Centre for Missile Attack Warning have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Please verify the data you added to the budget and subsidiaries in Special:Diff/1105938617. The values in the source document seem to be in RMB, not dollars.

Also, when adding references/source, please do not use bare URLs. Use one of the Wikipedia:Citation templates. Thanks. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed they are in RMB.

I used the latest USD to RMB conversion. I believe we should keep the number in USD for better presentation.

BoeingEngineer (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to just use the currency and value in the source. It avoids the issue with fluctuating exchange rates, and in so doing retains accuracy, satisfies WP:INTEGRITY, and avoids concerns about WP:OR.

Also, please us the citation templates and add page numbers. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is on page 6. BoeingEngineer (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will appreciate it if you can add the page number.

Cheers. BoeingEngineer (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the currency to RMB BoeingEngineer (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers should be according to the numbering scheme in the document, so I think the budget value is on page 3. You used the same CAS document as the source for changes to the subsidiaries field; what page is that data from?

On sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is not an exhaustive list ("If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion".) Anything that's not strictly forbidden on that list still needs to be accessed on a case-by-case basis based on WP:RS (that's the "context matters" part.)

For the Type 052D edit, these are my thoughts:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/08/five-type-052d-destroyers-under-construction-in-china/

At least some of the lead contributors on the site have previous industry experience (which is good) but the site was effectively created to be their own personal publishing platform (which might compromise editorial standards, they can write whatever they want, which is likely not so good.) On the whole, navalnews is pretty mediocre and ideally avoided. This source should be removed.

https://eurasiantimes.com/worlds-biggest-naval-power-china-goes-on-a-rampage-is-secretly/

Written by nobody of note. The publisher doesn't look like anything special based on the about page; looks like another soapbox for opinions and republished content. The source is highly derivative of the navalnews.com article (the phrase "Type 052D is intended for the high seas" sticks out) so doesn't seem to add an independent viewpoint (Wikipedia:Independent sources). It's just padding (Wikipedia:Citation overkill) and should be removed.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/china-builds-six-more-destroyers-to-rival-us-navy-tdw55tt6n

The publisher is apparently considered generally reliable. It's also based on the navalnews article, but in this case that may just make the source borderline acceptable; a reliable source/publisher lending credibility to content from less reliable sources may be as good as it gets most of the time (articles from Janes tend to serve this purpose too.) This source can probably stay.

- RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for cleaning up the refferences. BoeingEngineer (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:BoeingEngineer reported by User:Mys 721tx (Result: ). Thank you. Mys_721tx (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Type 052D destroyer. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

Per WP:DAILYMAIL, there is strong community consensus that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Please do not cite it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to Super heavy-lift launch vehicle! However, you should know that adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref>...</ref> tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Inline citations. You've been editing for 8 years, User:Shulinjiang; it's time to improve. Use the citation templates. Take the time to determine the source's details and the nature of the source; if you did, you might actually be able to avoid unreliable sources. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JL-3

See the talk page,Talk:JL-3, User:Shulinjiang. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Your recent editing history at JL-3 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]