User talk:86.146.24.230
September 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Type 99 tank, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. For additional information, please review WP:RS for more details as to why state-owned media like RussiaToday and CCTV are unacceptable. Khazar (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- WP:RS never stated CCTV or other state-media as unacceptable. I would argue that WP:RS encourages the use of CCTV in the context of Type 99 tank article. China's state-media has direct access to the tank and personnels involved in making of the tanks, thus is of higher reliability than non state-media. Furthermore, state-media sources were included such a way so as to exclude opinions from the authors, instead focusing on dates, numbers, and other technical remarks from engineers instead. A statement from chief-engineer is a statement from chief-engineer, regardless of whom reported it. 86.146.24.230 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia it's commonly accepted that state-media are not acceptable sources since they are merely mouth pieces of the government that sponsors them. More often than not, they are filled with inaccurate and biased articles that demonize democracies and sponsor propaganda. Considering how delusional you were when responding to the explanations brought forth by the hard working administrators, what you have to say bring more harm than benefit here. As Zhanfan once said, to "be a good mouthpiece" is the foremost responsibility of a CCTV journalist. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- My IP got changed again.
- The Type 99 page is about technologies rather than political system, your above reasoning have no place there. 86.136.122.86 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- All I mentioned was the unreliability of state media and advised you to show some respect to the administrators. No editor should have troubles with that kind of reasoning except propagandists and vandals. Also, I will be restoring what you posted on this page for others to see. If yu take back what you posted, mark it with a strikethrough rather than deleting it. Kind regards, Khazar (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia it's commonly accepted that state-media are not acceptable sources since they are merely mouth pieces of the government that sponsors them. More often than not, they are filled with inaccurate and biased articles that demonize democracies and sponsor propaganda. Considering how delusional you were when responding to the explanations brought forth by the hard working administrators, what you have to say bring more harm than benefit here. As Zhanfan once said, to "be a good mouthpiece" is the foremost responsibility of a CCTV journalist. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- WP:RS never stated CCTV or other state-media as unacceptable. I would argue that WP:RS encourages the use of CCTV in the context of Type 99 tank article. China's state-media has direct access to the tank and personnels involved in making of the tanks, thus is of higher reliability than non state-media. Furthermore, state-media sources were included such a way so as to exclude opinions from the authors, instead focusing on dates, numbers, and other technical remarks from engineers instead. A statement from chief-engineer is a statement from chief-engineer, regardless of whom reported it. 86.146.24.230 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |