User talk:Ckfasdf/Archives/2023/July

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page All Nippon Airways, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you've got a problem with me, shamelessly reverting other person edit with the weakest argument. You've attacked my edit three times for the weakest reason.

now look at this page Central Java, East Java, West Java. All of them are major provinces. Using your own word "Per MOS:SMALLFONT; minor ce on infobox to make it consistent with other provinces". All of those that i mentioned, as of 20 April are using small motto. I'm the one being consistent here

Outside of Indonesia. Kuala Lumpur and Paris are using small motto. Your argument to revert my edit on Central Papua is weak.

This sentence can be found on the Manual of Style "Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable". Can't wait for you to revert my edit again Afif Brika1 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Afif Brika1: I have no issue with you... But I do have issue with your edit. Indonesian-related topics are on my watchlist, if anyone makes I'll be notified. Regarding your edit on Central Papua, the issues are as follows:

1. You applied {{small}} on |motto= parameter. Whereas MOS:SMALLFONT, explicitly mentions Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as most text within infoboxes, navboxes, and references sections.. It doesnt matter if it used elsewhere, it still didn't comply with the guidelines.

2. You only put italics on |motto= parameter, MOS:LANG explicitly mentions Non-English words or phrases should be encased in {{lang}}, which uses ISO 639 language codes. Note that Template:Native name is alternative of Template:Lang, and I used that template since already put "Indonesian" on the end of sentence and I think it'll be better that way.

3. You also put curly apostrophe on |motto= parameter, MOS:APOSTROPHE mentions Use straight apostrophes ('), not curly apostrophes (’)

4. Lastly, you remove |native_name= parameter whereas almost all provinces article uses this parameter (example:West Papua (province), Highland Papua, East Java, East Nusa Tenggara, Central Java, and etc).

Based on my arguments above, I don't think my edit is "weak reversion" as they refer to guidelines/generally accepted consensus. Ckfasdf (talk)

After I saw your blunder when you revert your own edit "PeRdA iS NoT RaTiFieD" on Central Papua. I can safely say that you have no idea what your talking about. I'm being consistent here, I will follow style from major pages like Kuala Lumpur, Paris, East Java, Central Java. Use your energy anywhere else, I'm a major contributor of new provinces page in wikipedia Indonesia which are translated directly into wikipedia english, your only contribution is reversion. Afif Brika1 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Afif Brika1: Does it means you will intentionally ignore the MOS:SMALLFONT (a WP Guidelines)? Please note that MOS:SMALLFONT also explicitly state Note that the HTML <small>...</small> tag has a semantic meaning of fine print or side comments; do not use it for stylistic changes.

regarding the issue on Pergub for Central Papua Emblem, there is only one source that explicitly state is which is https://www.ceposonline.com/2023/04/17/papua-tengah-dob-pertama-yang-resmikan-logo-daerah (pretty much an obscure media outlet, which you didn't mention on your edit or edit summary), and no other mentions in mainstream media. Also you can't find that Pergub in government JDIH website yet.. Even reference in Commons still shows the draft of Pergub (not ratified version). So, it is reasonable if mistakes happen. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, i'm following consistency with Kuala Lumpur and Paris. The topmost sentence in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style - "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

Ceposonline is another name for Cenderawasih Pos, one the largest media in Papua. It's part of Jawa Pos Group, major newspaper in Indonesia. By saying that ceposonline is obscure means that you have no idea about Papua. And you shouldn't hinder other editor from making edits on Papuan page because clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

Just use your common sense, Papuan media rarely become mainstream especially in such niche subject like logo design Afif Brika1 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Afif Brika1: It's true that there may be an exception for Guidelines, but you need shows where such exception exist. And small font on infobox is an accessibility issue as it was mentioned not only on MOS:SMALLFONT, but also on Template:Small documentation Using this template within an infobox would produce a font size 75% of the page default, well below the 85% minimum specified in the linked guidelines.

On your argument for other article, please also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

The previous issue on Central Papua is simply because you did not provide link to https://www.ceposonline.com/2023/04/17/papua-tengah-dob-pertama-yang-resmikan-logo-daerah in the first place and your edit summary didn't help either. Other editor may not be aware of such reference, esp. you.. yourself also said that it is a niche subject. Please also note that per WP:BURDEN, the editor who add content are the one who need provide reference for that addition. For your future edit, please always include/mentions your reference. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXIST is strawman argument, we're talking about styles within an article, not a NOTABILITY of an article, your link is about whether an article should EXIST OR NOT. Small motto is a matter of consistency of style, considering that major pages like Paris and Kuala Lumpur have small motto, then smaller pages should follow it. Again, you're using fallacious argument

Burden is on you, every provinces, city, and regency of Indonesia have a logo. Removing a good-sourced logo from an article like what you just did means that responsibility to provide explanation is on you. Just admit that you're clearly wrong for reverting my edit.

There is no wikipedia rules that said "a law should be ratified", as long that our sources comes directly from the government, then we should follow them. And also, JDIH is a bad source to find local law, because local government rarely upload their law on the internet. Afif Brika1 (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Afif Brika1: Since discussion on small font in the infobox is not going anywhere, I'll try to reconfirm this with other editors.

Also since, the article of Papua Tengah is about an administrative division. It is common sense that anything considered as "official" need to have law on that matter to be ratified. Heck, even Central Papua article is created after law no. 15/2022 on establishment of this province is ratified. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I have open up discussion on Template talk:Infobox settlement#exemption of MOS:SMALLFONT on infobox settlement on small font issue, please continue the discussion there. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi,dude.Can i ask you to stop changing the F-16 number from 16 to 8 because we have signed a contract. In Bulgaria before a contract is signed it has to go through parliament a then the minister of defence can go a sign a contract. A contract has been signed it just isn't the most important part . the most important part is for the MPs to approve it. We are expecting the second batch of F-16s in 2027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by STURMMANN16 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@STURMMANN16: For aircraft inventory in air force page, the consensus is to include as "on order" only after the purchase contract is signed by the manufacturer and customer, since signed contract" is more likely to happen in the future than approval to purchase by parliament, approval for sales by manufacturing country's government, MoU, LoI or any other form of "potential order" as contract is legally binding to manufacturer and customers, unlike other form of "potential order". In regards to additional 8 F-16s that recently obtained approval to purchase by Bulgarian parliament, that information is already included in the article (specifically on Bulgarian Air Force#Twenty-first century), but NOT on the aircraft inventory table. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi,i just saw a video where our Prime Minister Nikolay Denkov said ''we are buying additional equipment for the 16 F-16 Block 70s that we have signed contracts for and we expect the first batch of 8 in 2025 and the second in 2027 '' so does this confirm to you that we have signed a contract for 8 more F-16s? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhXujEoxxk0&ab_channel=%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%95%D0%9D%D0%95%D0%9D%D0%A2%D0%95%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%92%D0%98%D0%97%D0%98%D0%9E%D0%9D%D0%95%D0%9D%D0%9A%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%9B here is the video STURMMANN16 (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@STURMMANN16: Not yet, it was not clearly stated that the contract for second batch have been signed. At any case, once the contract is actually signed, it is very likely that it'll be reported by multiple mainstream defense/aviation news agency. For reference, see the following link for the news for contract of the first batch https://theaviationist.com/2020/04/06/lockheed-martin-concludes-contract-to-manufacture-f-16s-for-bulgaria/amp/ Ckfasdf (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding our recent comments there, I discovered a problem. For some strange reason I can click the Edit option but, I'm prevented from editing. I don't know why. Would you please replace the photographs of Spanish and Finnish marines in the introduction with the image that you preferred? It was this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Wasp_Vs_HMS_Reindeer_Engaged_In_Combat.jpg

That would be appreciated. Thanks. Dreddmoto (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I have seen your edit there. I think article has improved. Thanks very much and if you need help editing another article you can let me know. --Dreddmoto (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_marines_and_naval_infantry_forces#Suggest_renaming_this_article What do you think of the suggestion about renaming the article? Dreddmoto (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems an agreement has been made, and no further discussions were done for over a week, suffice to say a consensus has been formed. Can you move the page? I've tried but it won't let me. Thanks. - EvoSwatch (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)