User talk:Swatjester

Φ

PLAAF involvement in Vietnam

I hope you’re well. I noticed that my recent edit on the PLAAF page was reverted, and I would like to kindly ask for a reconsideration. In my edit, I referenced the deployment of both PLAAF and PLAGF units, including anti-aircraft units, during the Vietnam War. This information is based on sources that highlight the significant involvement of Chinese forces in supporting North Vietnam during the conflict.

I understand there may be concerns regarding the accuracy or the context of my addition, and I’d be happy to discuss it further or provide additional sources to clarify. I believe this aspect of the Vietnam War is an important part of the PLAAF’s history and would appreciate the opportunity to have the edit restored.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Here is my current non English sources I found, is these source acceptable to re add it?:

Source1: https://news.ifeng.com/history/1/jishi/200811/1107_2663_867254.shtml
Source2: http://hprc.cssn.cn/gsyj/wjs/gjyz/201606/P020180416372852730156.pdf

AussieSurplus1510 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) AussieSurplus1510 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Your source did not support the edits you were trying to make -- it made no mention of the PLAAF, it simply referenced "air defense units" without any indication of what branch they belonged to. That source also does not meet our standards for reliability -- it's simply an aggregator republishing content without endorsement of its accuracy, and the original source was not reliable. Neither of the two sources you've provided here are sufficient either -- the first is a highly biased opinion piece that makes grandiose claims while failing to state their methodology or evidence; the second is a student paper from the PLA's military academy. You need to find reliable, neutral, non-CCP sources for this claim. Additionally, it appears that you may be using LLM translation to help with your editing -- I strongly suggest avoiding using that in the article, as it's a very quick way to get blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

So does mean these policy may also applies at other language Wikipedia? Because about months ago I was being reported by someone and got blocked on Japanese Wikipedia for one week because I used machine translation and LLM, as they said to my talk page at there. AussieSurplus1510 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Every language Wikipedia makes their own policies, for the most part. Those may be identical, or may be different. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

Details of the balanced editing restriction

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future. Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed. They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace). This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

Officer commanding

What do you think about a redirect instead of outright deleting it? Bearian (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, that would work as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Black Hawk Down (film)

I'm curious why you protected this page for a year when it was only vandalized twice recently, the second time twelve days after the first. A year is a long while, so I wanted to hear your perspective for why you semi-protected it for that long. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Only twice recently, but it'd been having on-and-off issues for months before that from unconstructive IP edits so as I recall I went for a longer option to address both concerns. You're welcome to reduce it if you prefer (or suggest an alternate duration and I can do it). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the last edits go back to August, I would have done pending personally since there isn't much activity going on there. Plus it gives extra eyes and people can easily revert it once its in the pending changes queue. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll reduce the duration and switch it over to pending. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Now I'm confused -- I'm showing it's only protected for a month, not a year? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}

Ah I thought it was protected until February 2026, looks like I scanned over the page history too quickly. You could apply pending changes for a year, or apply semi-protection for a couple weeks, though personally I'd prefer the former. But it's well within your discretion to protect it however you see fit. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah OK that makes sense, I was like "it's been a couple of weeks since I looked at it but I don't remember it being *that* long...". With only a month (significantly less now), to me it'd make the most sense to just leave it as is then and let it expire naturally in a couple weeks and reassess afterwards, I think, but I'm also personally not a huge fan of pending changes as it's always felt clunky to me. But if you want to modify it to PC you'll find no objections from me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)