User talk:Ckfasdf

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Request for Clarification on Reverted Edit - Algerian Air Force Article

Dear Ckfasdf,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently noticed that my edits on the Algerian Air Force page were reverted, with the reason cited as being "too detailed." I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles and ensuring that information is presented in a clear and concise manner.

I would like to better understand the specific concerns that led to the reversion of my edit. My intention was to contribute valuable information to enhance the content of the article. If the level of detail provided is considered excessive, I am more than willing to work collaboratively to find a suitable compromise that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Could you please provide more specific feedback on the aspects of my edit that were deemed too detailed? This will help me make necessary adjustments and ensure that future contributions align with the community's expectations.

I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I believe that open communication is key to achieving a consensus on content modifications. Your insights and guidance will be invaluable in refining my contributions and maintaining the high standards of the Algerian Air Force article.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your feedback and the opportunity to collaborate constructively.

Best regards,

MoussaCB

موسى (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MoussaCB: Thank you for reaching out for me. Regarding your edit on Algerian Air Force page, my main concern as I mentioned in edit summery it's just too many detailed information put into the inventory table and WP:WHENTABLE is quite explicitly about this as it says Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries. However, your questions is maybe "How much details considered as too much detail?". On that case, you can look up other aircraft inventory table on other air forces articles as reference, but typically one row of entry only contain one simple sentence, including on "Notes" column.
Let's look up example of your edit on inventory table as shown below
Aircraft Origin Type In service Notes
Combat Aircraft
MIG29 9.12S Russia Medium-Weight Multirole FIghter-Jet 30[1] 64 MIG29 9.12 recived from Ukraine and Belarus between 1998 to 2005,then upgraded to 9.12S format in Russia

Registration starts with FC[2] 3rd Air Defense Wing: 113th (Tindouf Air Base); 143rd (Ouargla Air Base); 153rd (Béchar Oukda Air Base); 193rd (Bousfer Air Base)[3]

Below is my concerns for the example above:
  1. Notes column contains 3 type information: a) history of that aircraft, b) where this aircraft is stationed, c) registration number of that aircraft
  2. Usually history of certain aircraft is included as Prose in the body of the article, most of time in "History section"
  3. Information on where this aircraft is stationed can be include in "Airbase" section, so it can list not only name of airbase but which unit and aircraft stationed there.
  4. Registration number and painting pattern are usually considered as minor thing, I dont think I can remember any air forces articles which includes those information.
  5. You also removed "variant" column, which you can find in any aircraft inventory table. please note that column is helpful to identify which variant used by the air forces.
  6. You modify number of aircraft operated to be "30" but the source (WAF 2024) explicitly states it's "39 active" and "5 ordered"
  7. Continuing from the above point, you removed "5 on order" on "Notes" column while that statement is sourced.
  8. You also decide put "Medium-Weight Multirole FIghter-Jet" in "Type" column, whereas we usually just put it as "Multirole" as it's more concise.
  9. Lastly, you are using internet forum as source for your claim.
I intend to condense the level of detail in one to two sentences and eliminate the airbase information, as per your preference.
@MoussaCB: I don't know how you are going to work it out, but usually "Notes" column only to be used for number aircraft on order or other type of aircraft (i.e. trainer), please look up other air forces articles for reference.
@Ckfasdf why not be the refference?
@MoussaCB: Again... principle of least astonishment (consistency or uniformity between air force articles). Ckfasdf (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I initially aimed to retain the registration for differentiation among plane variants, I am willing to omit them upon your request.
@MoussaCB:it's good that we have an agreement.
Regarding the presentation of variants, I believe maintaining a separate listing, as I have done, is more effective, and I am inclined to adhere to this approach.
@MoussaCB: As I mentioned above, all aircraft inventory table on air force articles are using format that have variants, I don't really see why we should have different format for this one, and this is aligned with principle of least astonishment (consistency or uniformity between air force articles).
@Ckfasdf because the difference between variants is often huge,for example lets take the MIG29UB and the MIG29M,the MIG29M have a 2 times smaller RCS (5M2 VS 2.5M2),The Mig29M has a Radar and the MIg29UB does not,The Mig29M is a single seater and the MIg29UB is a 1 seater,there is a reason why the MIG29M is designated MIG35S in the russian air force,and there is many other differences that i did not mention between those.
@MoussaCB: Eventhough, they do have difference, they are still variants of MIG-29, exception can be made only if a) A production variant evolved from the same basic design has been given a different name, b) A production variant has a different role and is so distinct as to be virtually a different type. or c) A production variant incorporates a major airframe redesign such as swept wings. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WAF 2024, 39 MIG-29s and 1 MIG-29 (for training) were utilized by the Algerian Air Force, with 5 on order. I specified 30 MIG-29 9.12S, 1 UB (for training), 4 M2, and 5 M and 5 M2 additional units on order, totaling 40 with 5 on order, and I fail to discern an issue with this arrangement.
@MoussaCB: Even though, we all know that Algeria operate MIG-29S/UB/M2.. The main issue is simply I can't find source that state 30 MIG-29S, 1 UB, 4 M2 and 5 M. Please also note that WAF also list it under "MIG-29". So, unless we have source that explicitly mentions number of each variants, it'll be better to keep it under "MIG-29".
@Ckfasdf apart from Forcesdz which i saw you really dont like, Military Africa,Defense info,Shepard Media,Scramble,defense web,aerotime,alert5,TASS,defenseaero,time aerospace,Russia Beyond,Defense mirror,Algerie360,Global defense corp and many many more all cite that algeria ordered 14 MIG29M2/MIG29M just like WAF said (they didnt specify M/M2 but still said 14),Forcesdz admin team is the only one saying that ther is 4m2 and 10 m2 in the order so why shouldnt we belive them? they have always been accurate,moreover for the UB,avionmilitaire website say that 2 are used,and menadefense say that they are used for training,and military africa said that a 2 seat MIG29 fighter crashed in algeria in 2022,and WAF 2021 say that algeria operated 32 MIG29 aircraft (and that the M/m2 werent delivered) with all this info i think that avionmilitaire website forgot to actualise the website after the crash (in WAF 2022 Say that 2 new MIG29 were delivered so if we do 33-2 we get 31 and thats 1 number below the waf 2021 so we can see that algeria has 1 MIG29UB for now,and all the rest can ONLY be 9.12S as algeria has no other MIG29 variant. موسى (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MoussaCB: the only issue with sourced that you mentioned, none of them explicitly says that currently (at 17 January 2024), Algerian air force has 30 MIG-29S, 1 UB, 4 M2 and 5 M. If we compile those data then it may be considered as WP:SYNTH and it's not acceptable in Wikipedia. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer "multirole" instead of "Medium-Weight Multirole Fighter-Jet," I am open to your suggestion.
@MoussaCB: again, all aircraft inventory table on air force articles are using this terms, so my arguments is same as above.
Additionally, Forcesdz's website contains a forum section, albeit not a comprehensive one. I am willing to explore alternative sources that align with Forcesdz to ensure consensus. May we proceed to harmonize our proposals? موسى (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MoussaCB: Please note that you don't need my permission to explore/use other sources that comply with acceptable reliable source in Wikipedia, I was simply mentioning the policy in Wikipedia whereas internet forum is not acceptable for source. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i used the militaryt balance 2024 to update the combat fleet of algeria موسى (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MoussaCB: You can use IISS' Military Balance, as it's considered as WP:RS. Since I dont have access to Military Balance 2024 yet (only have 2023 edition at the moment), where did you get access to that source? I just want to know and get access too. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will send you the link herehttps://ixi.ru/share/The%20Military%20Balance%202024.pdf موسى (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALGERIAN AIR FORCE showed 1 MIG25R in their wesbite very recently,i added the article in the fleet and put N/A number,altrought i personaly know their is 4 موسى (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MoussaCB: According to various source (such as 1, 2, 3, Algeria retires their Mig-25 in 2022. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and according to me,some forums and even some photo they put them back in service in the end of 2022 213.97.84.249 (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forum is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources (WP:RSSELF), and editors are not permitted to interpret images/photos on their own according to the policy on original research (WP:NOR). Therefore, until we found reliable sources that explicitly mention the MiG-25 being back in service, it should not be included in the inventory table. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that he has the same opinion as me,and lets be honest,its a rumor but all the photos,google maps evidence and Algerian air force showing it on their wbesite is total evidence موسى (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note in WP, we are editors not reporters, we only edit based on information posted on reliable source. If the Algerian air force provides written information on their website that they still operate the MiG-25 from the end of 2022 until now, that could be considered a reliable source. However, if they only share a photo of the MiG-25 without context, it cannot be used as a source since we lack details such as the date the photo was taken. It's important to acknowledge that this issue may be challenging, as it involves contradicting many reliable sources that state Algeria retired its final MiG-25 in July 2022. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was there it was an open day,there was even its pilot and algerian air force dont report the plane it use on its website,only show photos موسى (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:TRUTH: Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add information to articles simply because they believe it to be true, nor even if they know it to be true. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
by the way that wasnt me موسى (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Embraer, In association with. "2024 World Air Forces directory". Flight Global. Retrieved 2024-01-14.
  2. ^ "Colours of the MiG-29. Mikoyan & Gurevich MiG-29 camouflage and painting schemes. European countries, Russia, Asia. MiG-29, MiG-29UB, MiG-29SMT, MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-35". www.mig.mariwoj.pl. Retrieved 2024-01-14.
  3. ^ "MiG-29S/UB [Fulcrum-C/B] - ForcesDZ". www.forcesdz.com. Retrieved 2024-01-14.

Stick to Pakistani issues

Stop damaging the Turkish Air Force article and adding unreliable Pakistani blogs with incorrect information. Hurricane Spitfire (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot recall including a Pakistani blog in the Turkish Air Force article. However, I have reverted it back to the previous version, where it is likely already present. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Papua Flag

I readded the flag, with a source.

https://papuabaratdayaprov.go.id/berita/19/bapperida-gelar-lokakarya-program-paitua-bagi-sekber-provinsi-dan-kabupaten-kota-se-pbd.html

Right side

Eehuiio (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian afd territory

BTW thanks for the request/suggestion wherever it was asking for additional presence at the AFD of Indonesian articles. I dont think that I can be much help really, I am not sure I can survive too many afds as I dislike them at the best of time, they are in many instances, imho not what wikipedia is about. JarrahTree 05:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: my primary reason to go to AfD is to remove articles created by that sock, but it seems articles that I do have concern with already deleted anyway. I think I also will go back with usual editing. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - pleased to hear that. I had deleted some material in this talk page, as I am living in a drought affected part of Australia, I am very nostalgic for tropical storms from when I lived in Java, walking with an old dutch bicycle through very heavy rain. The AFD's seem to be distractions from reality to me. JarrahTree 06:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by is deprecated in military infoboxes

I have been told that the military infobox MOS is a general guideline, not a policy or set of rules per se. What are your thoughts on this? Katangais (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Katangais: To be honest, I'm not quite understand what you are asking here. But, I'll try to respond anyway. IMO, there is no policy or guidelines on when to use infobox and which infobox to be used. However, should we use Template:Infobox military conflict, there is a consensus to not use "supported by" in that infobox. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I was told by multiple contributors that citing the linked consensus when striking the "supported by" sections in the infobox is irrelevant, because WP:MILMOS is a general guideline for contributors rather than an official Wikipedia policy that can be enforced. How accurate is this? --Katangais (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Katangais: Wikipedia:Consensus is one of Wikipedia policy. And consensus to deprecate "support by" in infobox military conflict was gained through consensus-building mechanism (in this case, it was through RfC). Please note that WP:MILMOS has nothing to do with that consensus as they are two different things. Also, disregarding consensus intentionally might be seen as disruptive editing. I have seen an editor who ignored this consensus and was eventually blocked. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Ckfasdf"