User talk:198.135.125.122

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.

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.

Please stop following an editor you are involved in a dispute with just for the purpose of reverting all his edits. This behaviour is

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.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello Darkness Shines. The sources claiming that Kamov designed the chopper is false. The four sources were all written in 03/08/2014 and 03/07/2013, just one day apart. They are all western sources written just three month after the Chinese revealed the WZ-10. Also if you take a look at Kamov's choppers, there is not a single Kamov chopper looks like WZ-10 at all !!

Second. All these sources contain the exact same materials that Kamov's cheif designer said the Kamov deisnged the plane but later he recanted that Kamov was only involved in the initial layout design while vast majority of the plane was designed by the Chinese. Also, the only proof these sources have is a picture drew in 2013 with 2010's computer software written in English subtitles. If Kamov a Russia company designed the plane then why was it written in English? Is not this strange? At last China and Russia's news media have openly debunked this false claim. Here is the source: http://oversea.huanqiu.com/military-articles/2013-03/3727933.html

198.135.125.122 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a knowledge of Chinese might want to look at it, but even if it was true it does not allow you to

Talk:CAIC Z-10. De728631 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

the link you have mentioned clearly states that while the helicopter was designed by kamov further development was carried out by china. this is the same information provided in the flight global and other links and also the standpoint of the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvpoodle (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided are prejudice western sources whom hold biased view toward China, they cited something from Kamov's designer at a Las Vegas show and used it as something "Official" !! Those sources you provided are not multi neither since they were written in 03/07/2013. The source you quoted also clearly said that Kamov only involved in the initial design, yet you went on to completely exclude China and its company's from the designers' lists. Tell me, which part of WZ-10 was made or even designed in Russia? Its engines, weapons(Rockets/Missiles), avoincs, autocannons, rotor blades are all designed and build in China by Chinese companies. It was not until just three month later the Chinese reveled the WZ-10, all of a sudden these western and Russian sources came out to bash it.

so how come your "official" Chinese source also says kamov is the designer? please read your source carefully before continuing to defend your actions. google translate and other translate tools were used on all the links you have provided so far and all of them continue to maintain that while kamov is initial designer rest of dev is done in china. which is what all the "evil" russian and western sources also say. wikipedia is a source to keep a record of events as they happened not an outlet for you to spread propaganda on what you wished had happened instead. Pvpoodle (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you being an indian is so obssessed with a Chinese military hardware?? Strange is not it?!?! To answer your question, you said that Kamov was only the initial designer which means nothing more than just creating the layouts and configuration! Does not constitute design work? The actual designs of vital parts such as engines, weapons, sensors, avonics, and body were all done by the Chinese. Yet your "netural" comment put Kamov as the sole designer while excluding all the other Chinese companies and actual engineers and designers whom worked ont it! You deliberately put your baised and trolling comment on the very first page and even went as far as changing the section on the right hand side while completely excluding Chinese companies. There are people whom spend hours if not days writting the sections such as avoincs, designs, engines, weapons, and flight testing below!! Basically you are trying to tell the readers NOT to read them but your own words!! Just like your insane amout of HATE towards China!! Yet the facts remains, China remains technologicaly, encomonicaly, and military far superior to India. Care to show us how you Indians developed the LCA? After how many decades with French design work, with Russian munitions, and American engines? You still can't make it work!! Now it is your LCH! Let's see how many more decades will take you indians to get it done!

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:198.135.125.122 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

198.135.125.122 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I talked to different Wikipedian about this issue to revert Podvoole's eddits. He kept revert. If I was unblocked, I will not revert any edits, but rather adding new soruced materials to debunk him 198.135.125.122 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not allowed, whether you are (or believe you are) right or not. And Wikipedia is not the forum in which to express nationalist views, either Chinese or Indian. Or indeed any other nationality. --

^"talk" 18:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

198.135.125.122 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I talked to different Wikipedian about this issue to revert Podvoole's eddits. He kept revert. If I was unblocked, I will not revert any edits, but rather adding new soruced materials to debunk him 198.135.125.122 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Same request, same response: Edit warring is not allowed, whether you are (or believe you are) right or not. And Wikipedia is not the forum in which to express nationalist views, either Chinese or Indian. Or indeed any other nationality. ----jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

you continue to make personal attacks against me even on this very talk page and attempted to revert my edits on other pages to spread your message of hate. this behavior has been ongoing for last few days and apparently your previous block a few days ago, seems to have taught you nothing. all the links you keep adding do nothing to verify your claim and only say what has already been mentioned in the article, yet you wish to continue contesting this fact even after multiple editors have tried to have a meaningful discussion on both your talk page and the article's talk page. i doubt you will do anything to enrich Wikipedia even if your block was to be removed. i hope that now that your main account Shulinjiang is also blocked, you will stop this behavior of stalking and making personal attacks against other editors. Pvpoodle (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also you attempted to use a pseudonym "jon" under the ip Special:Contributions/64.134.160.102 and claimed you were the original editor of the z-10 page when if fact you were not(as evidenced by the edit logs). you attempted to gather support for you position by talking to other editors, however they recommended that you seek consensus on the talk page first, a fact you seem to ignore when claiming "I talked to different Wikipedian about this issue to revert Podvoole's eddits" and also claiming on an edit on the z-10 page that other editors "gave you permission" to make disruptive edits. you have not engaged in any constructive behavior and were caught abusing multiple accounts/ip's (WP:SOCK) with an elaborate attempt to create another identity "jon" to make it appear that there were other people were agreeing with your point of view. i sincerely hope but doubt that you have learnt your lesson and will desist from this sort of obnoxious behavior of stalking and abusing others when they disagree with you. Pvpoodle (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You are not allowed to remove edits directly relating to your block as long as the block remains in force. Doing so again will result in your block being lengthened. --