User talk:Peter O'Conner

July 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Weishi Rockets, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Blogs are NOT reliable sources, and cannot be used as references. Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Modern equipment of the People's Liberation Army Ground Force. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 21:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

As I have pointed out to you before on at least one of your previous accounts (User:Tamlinwah/User:AChig), http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com is not a reliable source since it is self-published by a non-expert. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And continuing on in this vein: in this Type 99 edit you used a raw image without expert commentary; images by themselves are not reliable sources. Also, the Eastern Arsenal articles from PopSci are non-expert sources that rely heavily on enthusiast sources (so a non-expert source relying on non-expert sources); i.e. not reliable. I pointed out the weakness of the PopSci source on Talk:YJ-12 and Talk:YJ-62 in response to your edits there, and I see you have failed to address them.

And in this J-10 edit you used chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com again, which as noted before is not a reliable source (self-published non-expert and all of that.) And what are the credentials of grandstrategy.com? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PopSci and other things

(1) Concerning your constant re-addition of the PopSci sources on the articles for:

I have reverted them, and will most likely continue to do so. My concerns have been available on the relevant talk pages for months (Talk:CJ-10_(missile)#PopSci_and_Janes, Talk:YJ-62#PopSci). Since it seems you aren't reading edit comments, I explicitly invite you to discuss the matter on those talk pages.

This is just a continuation of your behaviour from previous accounts (User:Tamlinwah/User:AChig).

(2) Concerning modification of the infobox for YJ-12 (7 October 2015, which is again a continuation of previous account behaviour from at least mid-2015.)

Li Li's numbers don't accord with info from reliable sources (US professional publications,) and since there's no way to compare the figures given Li Li's are for particular launch conditions. Additional verification is needed before giving them prominence in the infobox. I vaguely alluded to this on the Talk:YJ-12, but I doubt you bothered to look at that anyway. So here too I explicitly invite you to discuss it on the relevant talk page.

(3) Concerning your re-addition of Deagel as a source for YJ-18 (7 October 2015, following edit by your Tamlinwah account on 29 May 2015...

Deagel.com is (at best) a news aggregator website. When it comes to stats, it fails to give sources. The site gives no impression of being maintained by experts or professional analysts, and does appear to be WP:SELFPUBLISH source (i.e. not reliable) given the site ownership information.

Consider this relevant to all the other times you've added Deagel and other news aggregator sites with little to no professional credentials. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hi

For future reference, it is perfectly fine to reuse citations. Please do not clutter the reflist with the same citations over and over again RedArrowSG (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time read your sources

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the concept of text–source integrity (WP:INTEGRITY); but in a nut-shell if you're going attribute text to a source, the text should actually reflect what's in the source. Otherwise you make poor edits like the ones I just reverted:

[1]
[2]

As alluded to by RedArrowSG above, you really should learn to reuse references (WP:REFNAME) rather than spamming links. (Bonus points for properly formatting references (WP:CITEHOW).) But that might actually require you to learn how to improve your editing skills; perhaps too difficult for you?

And again, PopSci isn't good enough. Nor are data aggregation sites. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 07:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to ANI thread

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Peter O'Conner. Thank you. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 08:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamlinwah. Thank you. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Peter O'Conner. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]