User talk:Lucinator

March 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to People's Liberation Army, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. GotR ^Talk 02:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Tourmaline, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a GIA certified Gemologist? Do you have ANY credentials to make such a statement? The only source for the info that was deleted was a company website hawking their own product. I did not add anything just removed false info. If you continue to have a issue take it up with the GIA or I can have the article flagged for having misinformation. Your choice. Lucinator (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as per the GIA guidelines

Copper-bearing gem tourmaline—recognizable by its vivid neon blue to green color—has been one of the most popular colored gemstones on the market for the nearly three decades since its debut (figures 1 and 2). It was first discovered in the state of Paraíba in northeastern Brazil in the late 1980s, and subsequently found in the neighboring state of Rio Grande do Norte (Fritsch et al., 1990; Shigley et al., 2001; Furuya, 2007). These gems became known as Paraíba tourmalines after the locality of their discovery.

While top-quality Brazilian Paraíba tourmalines tend to have more intense color, there is significant overlap in the color range for all localities. Additionally, standard gemological tests cannot definitively separate stones from these three localities. As a result, there is market demand for gemological laboratories to offer origin determination for copper-bearing tourmalines

Because standard gemological properties and microscopic observations (e.g., mineral and fluid inclusions, fracture patterns, growth tubes) are not conclusive in distinguishing geographic origin for Paraíba tourmaline, other methods must be used.

Geographic origin can be conclusively and accurately determined for the vast majority of Paraíba tourmalines based on their trace element profiles, allowing this service to be offered for Paraíba tourmaline in the gem and jewelry market, such as the fine-color Brazilian stones in figure 8. Nonetheless, there are some cases where an “inconclusive” call is warranted when the trace element profiles are ambiguous or contradictory. There are three reasons for the ambiguity:

From time to time the laboratory examines Paraíba tourmalines that do not seem to match the trace element profiles of any stones in GIA’s reference collection. Obtaining reference samples with reliable provenance that match these unknown stones is currently a priority of GIA’s field gemology department; see Vertriest et al. (2019), pp. 490–511 of this issue.

New chemical discriminators may be needed. Statistical approaches such as discriminant analysis or multivariate statistics may provide additional mechanisms to evaluate the certainty of the locality determination and reduce “inconclusive” calls.

Chemical zoning in tourmaline may complicate interpretations. Color zoning is common in cuprian tourmaline and has been studied with electron probe microanalysis and LA-ICP-MS. In these studies, trace element concentrations correlate with color in naturally zoned samples (e.g., Laurs et al., 2008; Peretti et al., 2009). It is possible that the limits of chemical zoning of Paraíba tourmaline have not been included in the original fields for localities. Ideally, potential chemical zoning should be known before conducting LA-ICP-MS analysis so that all of the compositions can be captured. In tourmaline, however, chemical zoning may not include chromophores and may not be visually recognizable.

In the early twenty-first century, similarly colored gem-quality tourmalines were discovered in Nigeria and Mozambique (figures 3 and 4; Smith et al., 2001; Abduriyim and Kitawaki, 2005). However these can be differentiated by trace elements (figure 7). As noted earlier, liddicoatite can also be found in the Paraíba tourmaline market. Katsurada and Sun (2017) reported that the origin of the copper-bearing liddicoatite was unknown at the time of publication. Subsequently the source was identified as Maraca, Mozambique (Milisenda and Müller, 2017) Lucinator (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh Air Force inventory

You have been repeatedly reverting edits on the active inventory of the Kazakh Air Force despite the presence of multiple sources indicating that you are mistaken.

Using the following sources for the information that follows: 1. The Military Balance: 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 editions. 2. World Air Forces, 2010, 2011/12, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 editions.

Cross-referencing these over the different editions shows that the Kazakh Air Force only operated a total of 2 MiG-23, 12 MiG-27, 14 MiG-29, 31 MiG-31, 13 Su-24, 24 Su-27, 23 Su-30, and 14 Su-25s in recent years.

In this, we have sufficient sources which mention that a large number of aircraft and helicopters (117 in total) were put up for auction last year, and were reported as being unserviceable and unfit for further service. Further, using sources mentioning the sale of 81 aircraft recently along with the aircraft types mentioned, the total comes out to 31 MiG-31s + 14 MiG-29s + 12 MiG-27s + 13 Su-24s + 2 MiG-23s plus some helicopters.

Even if the news of this sale is discounted, the aircraft have still been put on auction, and by dint of the aforementioned news sources, the aircraft have been retired and are unfit for further service, thereby excluding them from the Kazakh Air Force's active inventory. Moreover, using the sources mentioned for aircraft numbers, these aircraft put on auction would be the only ones of those types Kazakhstan would have. That is, for instance, Kazakhstan put all 12 of their MiG-27s on auction, and those were the only aircraft of that type they had.

I have reverted your edit for the time being, and mentioned for this message here. Please respond here if you think my calculations are wrong. Please also support any such assertion with relevant sources. R Anant (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you are again mistaking active inventory and stored aircraft, most of the aircraft that were sold were from long term storage dateing to 1992. this is your last warning before I request your being locked from the article. Lucinator (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan never had the additional aircraft. There were no leftover Soviet-era stores that were kept in storage from 1992 until the present time. Unless you have a source stating that, this is a false claim. I am giving you a 48 hr window to present a relevant source, following which I shall revert the change and report you for vandalism. R Anant (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please see citations 10-15 of the article in question. If you cant be bothered to read a article's citations that is not my problem. You have already been referred to administrators for a ban from wikipedia. Not being bothered to read citations won't help. Goodday. Lucinator (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]