User talk:Lostromantic

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please be advised that, contrary to your recent assertion at John Van Antwerp MacMurray, your own interpretations of a primary source are not superior to interpretations given by a secondary sources. Please consult Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources, which states that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." If you have any questions, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page. Homunculus (duihua) 00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s., I've reverted you on Guangdong model and Chongqing model. Both terms were already linked in the body text, so they didn't need to go in the 'see also' section. Cheers. Homunculus (duihua) 00:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lostromantic! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Chinese Air Force a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I had no idea that you could do something like that; would have made the task a lot easier. I was trying to swap the redirects and their disambiguation pages. I'm pretty much a novice at this; is there any way I can re-fix those changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostromantic (talk • contribs)

Chinese Navy and Chinese Navy (disambiguation) should now be working the way you intended. Check those and make sure I didn't miss anything while I work on the Air Force. Because you created content, only an administrator (like me) can fix the content now, because I have to delete the disambiguation pages before moving them. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The air force and army pages should also now be repaired. Let me know if you see a problem with either of those. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks so much man! Lostromantic (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! And thank you for the Barnstar! —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purported means to make a false claim or declaration. So yeah, it would be weasel words if the authors are biased against the J-20 being an actual stealth fighter. In any case, the J-20 and J-30 already look, feel, and perform much more like the definition of a stealth fighter than the F-35 will ever do. Meh, whatever, I've learned that Wikipedia editors are basically racists, especially against anything that isn't Euro-centric. (Psychoneko (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I wouldn't go as far as to accuse User:Hcobb and User:Mallexikon of racism. What does strike me as odd about them is how they engage in tag-team editing. I would not be surprised at all if they all happened to be sockpuppets. Lostromantic (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a race of war technology what matters is the existence of it in someone's hand. Before accusing BS check even more sources to verify claims and make the necessary corrections. We will see about the rest.Mightyname (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hindu Taliban shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 04:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I admire the position you assumed. In both my talkpage and into the article's talkpage. Consensus and civilized ideas not only make a better wikipedia, but keep the world spinning on. Cheers Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 07:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun the Good Article review for Mo Yan; your thoughts would be welcome on the review page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at your edit just now. What did you think you were reverting? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello lostromantic, I am not going to proceed to user noticeboard, I'm going to ask admin direct intervention on the actual article, because this conflict seems to be isolated, and I don't wanna engage into any action or interaction with him even though I posted a question on his talk page, I do hope that is the last time I have to do it. I have asked for full page protection so, if both of you want to add or remove something it must be done by admin assistance, preventing direct conflict. regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chai Ling may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• :Interviewer: "Are you going to stay in the Square yourself?]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Chai Ling page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chai Ling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiananmen Square Incident (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes don't necessarily show a users editing pattern. Just because I have a box on my page stating I support an independent Tibet, that too, which I added six years ago, doesn't mean my edits are biased and I am violating WP:NPOV. I also have a box that says I support renewable energy, that doesn't mean I go about vandalising pages on Coal or Natural gas powered energy. In a nutshell, userboxes are NOT indicative of editing patterns. Please bear that before making NPOV accusations next time. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Horse Eye's Back. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Zhao Lijian‎ have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Zhao Lijian‎. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lostromantic: I've noticed you're a restrained editor. You like to keep things cool. And I like that. Just one thing. I noticed in one of the edits made on the Zhao Lijian article you dismissed use of The Sydney Morning Herald regarding its neutrality. I'm sure we're agreed that the sources we want to see used for any encyclopaedia ought to be reliable, that's the goal. I've checked the list of reliable and deprecated sources and the SMH is fine. Given we're talking about events that occurred in Australia, it's pretty natural to turn to the papers of record for that country, which would certainly include the SMH. Fair?The Little Platoon (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, appreciate the message. Re the SMH, they posted an editorial asking why there should be any inquiry at all into the Australian SAS's actions, which makes me question the neutrality of that paper on this topic. Lostromantic (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you question the reliability of the source personally, that does not definitively make it an unreliable source. Generally speaking, the SMH is a reliable source. It may sometimes hold certain political stances, but that doesn't necessarily make it unreliable. Non-neutral? Most definitely. But just because someone has a political agenda, that does not necessarily make them unreliable. In any case, non-neutral sources are cited in Wikipedia articles all the time, often in order to highlight the stances of different parties involved in disputes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Yep. I also noticed this. How is the SMH not a neutral source? Are you saying this just because they come from Australia, which is one of the parties involved in the dispute (obviously, the other is China)? Disregarding the fact that the SMH comes from Australia, it is generally regarded as a reliable source. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Self-immolation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DPP. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]