User talk:WaterMirror17

Welcome

Hello, WaterMirror17, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 15:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Thanks. That's a big help since I didn't know the procedures in asking, & I forgot about it since my time was spent most on researching procedures. Again, thanks WaterMirror17 (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Original Analysis or Speculation

Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on use of 'original' content/analysis in articles. You have made edits to several articles which violate some basic guidelines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

--Girder2139 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, as for the cost infobox's year data and inflation-adjusted price. You 1st deleted it using a mere claim of "clutter" but no proof. So I revived it with a counter-explanation, I'll copy-paste it here:

"Reverted to cost infobox. Inflation-adjusted costs are intertwined w original cost as they're NOT fixed overtime; while specific cost is fixed to a specific time period thus reverted original cost's "year" data. Direct costs data obviously literally befits cost infobox, NOT clutter".

Then recently, you deleted it again for no reason at all, meaning, you deleted it based on your speculation. So I just revived it minutes ago. WaterMirror17 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd, as for HDP displacement, thanks for the update. I concede on that one. But to be clear, I made NO speculation on displacement as the figures and other info I mentioned in the "note" do exist factually. More like it was an "update" matter, and your 1st deletion didn't provide proof either, plus you claimed 2200t as "minimum" empty displacement, again with no proof, which complicated it as you were speculating. And the fact that you didn't publish 2200t as empty in your edit proves you yourself is unsure of your own claim. 2200t is "most possibly" the standard load as that's a useful data than empty, that's why shipbuilders use it and full load as well. IIRC, per company overview data, I never heard of empty being included, perhaps only very-rarely heard it as included. More like such info only appears later. But even if you're correct, you are still unsure of it as already explained above.

To add, naval defense followers (even newbies) would most likely know the mere varied forms of displacement, thus the safe or justified assumption is they know; thus the person who assumes the opposite assumes such knowledge is high-level despite it's actually just normal for naval defense followers even for newbies, even for high schoolers.

Anyway, I don't know when Hyundai updated the infos but when I wrote that "note" I haven't met such info from previous official infos nor I have heard of it in the defense community discussions, except they repeat what MaxDef thought of it.

Again, thanks for the update. Appreciate it. WaterMirror17 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to what I have already posted in another talk page with regard to the infoboxes:

In addition, on principle Infoboxes should be 'concise', as per the reference entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Infobox

Adding extraneous information that is not justifiably inserted in the article body does not hold to his principle and clutters the infobox. Girder2139 (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information presented is NOT the issue. Updating information with credible sources is fundamental to the way Wikipedia works. Every contribution on this website should be properly verifiable and cited. This part of the basic rules of Wikipedia.

The issue is that you are attempting to put notes and other entries that constitute "original thought", that are not properly cited from a verifiable source, and which go against the fundamentally encyclopedic nature of the website.

Wikipedia is NOT a defense topic forum or a personal blog. It is an encyclopedia. You need to adhere to the common standards that are supposed to be held by contributors. Girder2139 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, you made no credible source the first time you deleted the note on displacement, so you broke what you just said.

And before you provided the new sources, my notes have credible sources on 2400t and 2200+t WaterMirror17 (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3rd, as for the note on MMCF's AShCM brand:

1). If my note is speculation, then where's your proof?

You said something about "educated guess" based on fleet commonality but then again no matter how educated your guess is, it's still a guess, thus the eventual result is not always 100%. People made educated guesses countless times and yet didn't happen in the end. Same goes to the educated guesses made in arms acquisitions which you yourself know, and my note simply portrayed that fact. On the reverse, IF you'll claim my note claimed Haesung will be not chosen, then again provide proof. My AShCM note simply stated the "as is" fact.

2) You also said about the brandless AShCM entry is already "succint" - yea I agree but then, some editors keep putting a brand on it, and you saw those edits yourself (those are facts) and IIRC you yourself deleted such edits (I also deleted those a few times). Possibly other editors will also follow. The editor I encountered revived the brandname with no proof, likely other editors will also follow. Those things led me to put that note--I thought that was enough but then you deleted it via the reason of "educated guess" which caused my note to be edited to include your idea of educated guess. I also briefly explained that at the edit's summary. I also explained that further inside the wikicodes itself to make clearer to the editors. If you still see this part as speculation, then prove it.

3.) You might say the note inside the wikicode is an eyesore - I kinda thought so myself but then it's only a matter of time the official brand will be publicized, and thus the 2 notes will naturally disappear.

In short, we cannot yet ascertain Haesung will be continued based on numerous similar precedents already explained, while simultaneously we cannot ascertain Haesung will be ditched simply because such precedents exist. Not all editors understand this. And even when known, people at times forget it. WaterMirror17 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You actions with regard to multiple articles qualify under the heading of "disruptive editing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

You have already been warned against edit warring with other users. Please learn how to properly work and collaborate with other users on Wikipedia, otherwise this matter might require administrative attention. Girder2139 (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you made claims without proof. Prove I committed disruptive editing. If you're gonna say "read the wiki article I gave" I red it but none. So where's your proof exactly? Explain it sufficiently. The user who keeps claiming but no proof is the one doing "edit warfare" — please avoid edit warring against other users. You have been warned. WaterMirror17 (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the MMCF AShCM brand note or the expectation of commonality of items in arms, it's "obvious" many people would expect it. Thus those expectations are "default positions" — anyone who does NOT have the default position is the one required to present proof, that's basic rules of logic. You're basically asking for proof that people expects commonality when obviously many expect it by default — rather it's the reverse — show proof that people don't expect commonality. "Additional proofs" : 1) Why do you think some editors previously wrote Haesung in this page? Because they "expected" it obviously. 2) You yourself even "expected" Haesung in one of your edit explanations. 3) MaxDef expected TASS as NOT ffbnw. 4) MaxDef expected RWS gun/s. 5) Many people commented in social media that TASS is not ffbnw. 6) We can go on forever with examples but you get the point. And there's no need to cite source for default positions, plus (again) that note will eventually be deleted once the official AShCM brand is announced anyway, so further no point citing a source. WaterMirror17 (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Air Force

Please do not engage in edit warring as done on List of equipment of the Philippine Air Force article. You are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users. You are inserting terms and headings that are not standard to the other pages, "light airlift" & "medium-weight utility" are terms not used for the type - let the aircraft wikilink do that. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you FOX 52 ^talk! 15:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources, which must be verified by you, and shouldn't cited in the article you are adding information to BilCat (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]