Talk:Hsiung Feng III

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hsiung Feng III missile on display.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Are children in charge of this article? Who came with these totally unrealistic (stupid) performance "estimates"? See Russian wiki for data that sounds reasonable. Mach 10... not even in wet dreams.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.97.149.147 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeez 

message: If someone insists on reverting the reasonable changes I made without substantiation, then I cannot help you. Keep it as highly inaccurate if you wish. There are even contradictions within the body of the text and the main references do not support the speculation that is shown in the article, in one instance, the words "it is certain that" precede an unsubstantiated guess.
Note that this is a military item, whose actual performance figures have not, unsurprisingly, been released to the public. References to "hypersonic" and "Mach 10+" and "15,000km range" are entirely speculation and just because they have been seen in print, does not make them substantiated.
Physical law prevents this missile from having the stated performance. This article, as it stands today, has been deliberately made inaccurate.
By the way, this is a quote from the main reference:
"While the ministry has not released any information on the capabilities of the HF-3 missile, military magazines surmise that the missile may reach speeds of between Mach 2.5 and Mach 3 at a range of between 150km and 200km."
Exactly in line with the modifications I have twice tried to make but were reverted without a word of discussion. I dont know how to issue warnings to people (I honestly cant figure it out, do I use the "template" here? in the body of the article?) but one may be appropriate here. 212.194.114.50 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This missile is not, cannot be, hypersonic. 

message: Seeing as this ongoing argument is not getting resolved, and blocks and PP isn't going to solve it, a RfC should be called. And anyway, a RfPP wouldn't work, as the IP could easily circumvent it. Also, this would avoid anyone here being on the receiving end of edit warring UWs from me myself and I. Read and consider heeding. My tongue is not forked. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that or using the tried and tested method of temporarily fully protecting the page so only admins can edit it, forcing editors to come to a consensus on this talk page before an edit can be made. Either way, edit warring is unacceptable and actions should be taken to stop it. Blurp92 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Both perhaps? Or would that be overkill? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not overkill at all as far as I'm concerned. The simultaneous use of both methods should bring this edit war to a screeching halt, at least for a little while. A temporary full PP would simultaneously force editors to contribute to an RfC while preventing other editors from ignoring said RfC and putting in their own edits anyway. Blurp92 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

text: My sincere apologies to you, but please keep in mind that I did not start any of this. Those other editors were the ones who first started deleting sourced information from this page. I'm simply defending the original sourced and referenced article. Again, sorry for any inconvenience you may have suffered.
Thank You! 43.249.129.233 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not accusing you of starting it, as the diffs say otherwise. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider an RfC 

message: An WP:RFC has been filed to bring editors to a consensus on various issues regarding the Hsiung Feng III missile. As of 2/1/17 the nominator has not picked a side for anything below.  L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Perhaps they do contain legit information. But them being tabloid makes it such that we should take anything they claim with the grainiest of salts. Although it should be obvious just by looking at any of their covers, here are sources for the fact that both Mirror and The Sun are tabloids:. Additionally, the Mirror's "About us" page admits they are a tabloid. Lizard (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

text: *Upon looking at the rest of this talk page, I see you've been adamant with your (repeatedly refuted) arguments for The Sun and Mirror sources for several weeks now. It's plainly clear you don't plan on being reasonable here. Now I'm upset with myself for not reading the rest of the talk page first, before I wasted precious editing time trying to hammer a wooden nail into a steel wall. Lizard (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm actually wondering whether there is a WP:COI issue ... Is ChinaTopix one of these IP editors? merlinVtwelve (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Would probably be impossible to determine. Doesn't change the fact that it's obviously a blog, so it's inappropriate for citing extraordinary claims. Lizard (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

text: "Blog"?? Lizard is being quite hypocritical now with his double standards. Please do not label every source that does not conform to your personal belief system as a "blog" or "tabloid". Can you not read the articles and see for yourself that the articles state the Hsiungfeng missile is faster than the Brahmos?
The Indian defence article and the others clearly state the Hsiungfeng is fast and nuclear. And I do not find any other source that saids that the Hsiungfeng is NOT nuclear armed. If you can find any source that saids the Hsiungfeng III is NOT nuclear capable, please enlighten us.103.27.220.21 (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

text: You're attacking a straw man here. I haven't read a single word of any of the sources. Frankly I don't care at all how fast some rocket is. It's clear you either can't or refuse to grasp the concept of reliable sources. And just because something isn't falsifiable doesn't mean it's true. Anyway, I've said all I've needed to say here. Lizard (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the sources that specifically state that the Hsiungfeng III CANNOT carry a nuclear weapon and is not fast? You can't right? You guys are double standard hypocrites who can't get your **** together! You can't even find a reputable source to back up your personal beliefs that the Hsiungfeng III "is not nuclear capable or fast". Show me some reputable sources or shut up you stupid Lizard! edited by L3X1 to remove uncivil language 103.17.199.191 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides Lizard (talk), why are you even wasting your time here arguing blindly if you haven't even taken the time to read the sources that were previously provided by the other editors? Don't waste your time if you are not going to read any of the sources!103.17.199.191 (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment WP:CIVIL please. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree. Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until there are true, hard facts that can back up statements rather than speculation (guesses, in plain English), I also vote keeping them off this article. Blurp92 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another point about the Taipei Times and Focus Taiwan is that they are both published in Taiwan. Taiwanese publications tend to stick to the truth when it comes to national defence, as they live in an regional hotspot where making false claims about military technology could have very serious consequences. I would suggest another reliable source (and also published in Taiwan despite its name) is The China Post which also describes the missile as supersonic. merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  This speed calculation is a good illustration. And to clarify my points above, of course, The New York Times and BBC are excellent sources. I have been suggesting only that Taiwanese media should be considered superior sources to the non-Taiwanese tabloid/blog type click-baiting publications which have been under discussion. merlinVtwelve (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

text: You've already made your entirely policy-contrary (and logic-contrary for that matter) points several times on this talk page using multiple IPs and have been unanimously refuted. Lizard (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I hate to have to bring this up for a second time in this RfC, but please keep this discussion WP:CIVIL and refrain from personal attacks. Blurp92 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  Here is the official website of the missile manufacturer which happens to be National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology(NCSIST). They have an entire page dedicated to the missile and have some specifications of the missile(). The speed of the missile is stated as supersonic and the engine as liquid fuel ramjet. Another important point to note here is that this is Mk3 version of the missile and the Mk2 version of the missile is subsonic(Mach0.8 to be precise). This is supported by the Missile's wiki page as well the web-page of the manufacturer(). I somehow find it a bit far-fetched that a new version of the missile would be developed directly from a subsonic capability to a hypersonic capability without ever achieving a supersonic capability. To conclude, Wikipedia considers offical sources to be the correct sources at the end. In this case, if the manufacturer itself claims that the missile is supersonic then that should end the argument on it's speed. Taking this argument further, if sun/mirror/chinatopix do mention the speed of the missile to be hypersonic(which is wrong according to the manufacturer) then the other details they mention might be false and thus cannot be admitted. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a very interesting angle. The missile is a commercially available product (presumably only to approved buyers). So it would be in the manufacturer's interest to make the strongest performance claims possible. And yet they are not claiming it is either hypersonic and/or nuclear capable. merlinVtwelve (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @ Your assessment is incorrect, the Hsiung Feng III is absolutely not for sale and is NOT, and will NEVER, be a commercially available product, unlike the American Patriot Missile defense systems which have been exported by the USA. The Hsiung Feng III hypersonic missile is designed and built in Taiwan exclusively for use ONLY by Taiwan's military force. It's 100% guaranteed that you will never see Taiwan sell this missile to any other country. The Taiwanese do not even sell their domestically built IDF Jet Fighter and neither do they sell their long range ballistic Yun Feng missiles to any other country. All of these weapon systems are used exclusively by Taiwan's military and ONLY by Taiwan's military. Both Taiwan and the United States have a policy of not publishing all the data on the weapon systems of their military forces for tactical strategic reasons. What you see in the public domain is just a small portion of the real data. Do you really think the U.S. military or Taiwanese military will publish all of their military secrets for the world, as well as their enemies, to see? Take a look at the U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile and note the maximum speed listed, this number is guaranteed to be nothing more than deliberate misinformation, the actual speed is much faster just like the actual hypersonic speed of the Hsiung Feng III missile.45.120.200.30 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay I stand corrected. The missile is not actually 'on sale' to overseas buyers at the present time. However, according to what I classify as a reliable source, The Taipei Times reported  in 2016 that a number of foreign buyers had 'expressed interest' since it was put on display at the Paris Air Show in 2015. If it's not a potentially commercial item, why is being put on display at an air show? See this article here . The Taipei Times calls it a 'desirable item in the global arms market'. Part of the reason given in the article is that demand from the home market is out stripping supply. Looking at its nozzles and speculating about its 'hypersonic' capabilities is WP:CRYSTALBALL and/or WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH which we should be doing our best to avoid.  merlinVtwelve (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Taiwanese built missiles and jet fighters as well as the Taiwanese designed submarines and Tuo Chiang stealth missile ships which are currently being built, are all being designed to carry the hypersonic Hsiung Feng III nuclear missile along with the subsonic Hsiung Feng II missile which you mentioned as the "MK 2" version, and will NEVER be offered for sale by the government of Taiwan, not even in the future. The MK 2 version Hsiung Feng II and the MK 3 version Hsiung Feng 3 are two separate and entirely different missile systems and this is self-evident even to non-engineers if you look and compare pictures of the two missiles together. The hypersonic Hsiung Feng III has additional solid fuel rocket boosters mounted to both sides as well as a centralized scramjet built into the heavy superstructure of the missile.  What the manufacturer's website publishes for the public domain is just deliberate misinformation, using misleading terms like "ramjet" when any aeronautical engineer can easily see that it is no ordinary "ramjet." It appears that the manufacturer's misinformation, most likely under orders from their president, is purposely designed to conceal the maximum true speed and destructive power of the missile while simultaneously projecting Taiwanese military power to the world and intimidating the enemies of Taiwan without revealing too much information about the actual missile itself. And if you don't believe me, just try to find some information, any information about the computer guidance systems on board the missile as well as the materials used for construction, you're not gonna find anything. The missile is being displayed in air shows and military exercises and rolled around military parades for one main purpose, something that military generals and politicians call power projection. The Taiwanese government is using this formidable hypersonic nuclear missile to send a message of intimidation to their enemies, mainly China, basically telling them "back off, don't mess with Taiwan" since they know very well that China has absolutely no defence against a missile traveling at hypersonic speeds. The only thing China could do is just retaliate with their own ballistic missile strikes resulting in the mutual destruction of both China and Taiwan which obviously does not benefit either side, but the reality is that the hypersonic Hsiung Feng III nuclear missiles, even if loaded with just conventional warheads, could level a tremendous amount of destruction given it's extremely high kinetic energy and that's what puts fear into the communist Chinese military brass of a military and economic superpower like the People's Republic of China (PRC). This Hsiung Feng III missile is essentially a "super weapon" of Taiwan much like the "super weapons" of World War II that were created by the Nazi Germans with their Luftwaft jet fighters, V-1 and V-2 rockets or the Imperial Japanese with their Yamato super battle ships and air carrier I-400 submarines, which during their time was state of the art technology that even the USA didn't have. But it's fact that Taiwan will never sell the missile to any other country, not even their allies of Japan or USA, simply because it is a tactical secret to their military forces.  Additionally, Taipei Times is no more "reliable" than CNN or Indian Defence News. If you want to make the alleged claim that Taipei Times is somehow more "reliable" then please back up your statements with hard evidence showing Taipei Times to be the more "reliable" source.  Please provide peer reviewed empirical research data proving your point and not personal opinions. There is no evidence to suggest that any Taiwanese news outlet is any better at obtaining news than experienced internationally based news media veterans like CNN, BBC or Indian Defence News.  CNN, Fox News, Sun, BBC, Mirror, Reuters, RT News are all equally valid. 49.77.132.106 (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This discussion is about WP:RELIABLE SOURCES not about conspiracy theories. There is a clear difference between sources like The New York Times, the BBC, The Taipei Times and click-baiting tabloids and blogs. They are not all the same. Honestly, this is just going around in circles. merlinVtwelve (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is Indian Defence News a "click-baiting tabloid" or "blog," you are slandering them without any evidence. Please prove your personal opinions??? 103.27.221.123 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  As per note, the onus of Verifiability and providing Reliable sources is on the editor adding information. In my opinion, here the editor has to demonstrate with reliable sources why the manufacturer NCSIST has labeled the missile supersonic and not declared it nuclear. The editor can alternately provide an official statement from the Taiwanese government/army/defence forces that the missile is actually hypersonic and nuclear capable. In the absence of this I would consider the missile to be supersonic and not nuclear capable. If the editor cannot demonstrate this, then I support the closure of this RfC with the consensus that the missile is supersonic with no nuclear weapon capability. I have so far not seen any sources from the editor which would make me believe the information he/she added is more correct then the one provided by the actual manufacturer. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The onus of verifiability lies in those editors who are claiming that the missile is not hypersonic or nuclear.  The sources provided by some of the other editors lay support to the missile having the above mentioned qualities. Not one single source of information has been provided by any of the antagonistic editors disproving the nuclear capacity of the missile. Not even one single source!103.17.199.211 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  As recently as 12 January 2017, we have a direct quote from one of the engineers of the missile, Chang Cheng: “I have no doubt that our Hsiung Feng III missiles could do the job,” Chang said, adding that the supersonic missiles have earned the nickname “aircraft carrier killers” and can reach 2.5 to 3 times the speed of sound." No mention of nuclear from him either.  merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

text: This does not prove anything, there is no mention from him, but he also does not say anything about it and nothing in that article states anything against the nuclear capabilities of the missile, nothing.  103.17.199.211 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Do what you gotta do, Liz. P.S. Kudos to you for keeping your cool despite the relentless barrage of direct WP:PERSONALATTACKs against you from those IPs (*cough* WP:DUCK *cough*). Blurp92 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Can I ask what WP:DUCK has to do with this?? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

text:   It seems to me that there is a case of SOCK going on here but I could be wrong. Yes, you can argue that it's just because he has an unregistered account but there are 3 instances where the same editor refers or wants to say that those IP's are not him/her. Examples: Case1: "if you haven't even taken the time to read the sources that were previously provided by the other editors?", Case2: "Please see the following legitimate sources provided by the other ip editor before anything:" and Case3: he makes 2 comments to the same RfC. I think the IP editor should come out and clarify whether all these IP's are the same person or not. Also, there have been at least 3 instances of personal attacks on other editors from the same person. and 3RR being violated on 2 articles. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are totally right, the IP should clarify whether or not they are related/in control of the other IP addresses. The wording "please see…by the other ip editor" is extremely interesting, as it does imply a lack of symmetry between the 2. I was thinking (or hoping) that the difference could be explained by the fact that the IP may not have home internet, but that seems to be fading. The PA and lack of civility are not going to help the IP when an investigation takes place, IMO. If they make attacks again, I will look to bring admins into this. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Vanamonde (talk) ! Cudos to you! Well said, you're absolutely correct! The editors: Lizard (talk), Adamgerber80 (talk), Blurp92 (talk) and  merlinVtwelve (talk) need to provide reliable sources backing up their claims because they are the instigators who are trying to add new information to this article stating that the missile "is not hypersonic" and "is not nuclear weapons capable." Not one single paper or reference has been given that proves their point, not even one reference. No article that they have submitted for review thus far has stated that the missile "is not nuclear capable"...none, not one. Please provide any if you can???103.17.199.211 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  I would tend to agree ... (Not sure of the procedural fine points as I have not previously taken part in an RfC.) The IP is very hard to track ... whether it is one user hopping, or several different editors. The consistent language would suggest the same person. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Noises made by humans when they're being indecisive I was hoping to run this longer, seeing as only one day has elapsed and 5 different users (3 of whom have a familiarity witht he topic due to editing it) have commented. I understand your point though, I was 99% sure of the outcome of the RfC. I would also wait to see if any action were to be taken against IP for possible SOCK, incivility, and edit warring/refusing to listen to consensus. SEMI won't work if IP gets an account and looks to continue the conflict. In regards to continuing this RfC, I don't think any thing is going to change from the sample above, so I guess we can close this, sometime tomorrow? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support closing this RfC and Semi-protecting 3 articles(atleast for a short duration) which would be directly affected by this and have seen disruptions in the recent past. The 3 articles are Brahmos, Hsiung Feng III and Hsiung Feng IIE. SEMI in my opinion would work because if the IP does get an account that would be easily track-able and could be banned if it continues with disruptive behavior. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps also consider Semi-Protecting a fourth article: Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction. While researching this discussion / article, I noticed some similar 'nuclear/hypersonic/long range' assertions being made there by an Anon / IP user, which I have edited for the time being. merlinVtwelve (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Whatever you feel is necessary, but I think it's best we close it ASAP lest we subject ourselves to more tomfoolery. How about this: if you feel satisfied with the points that have been made, there's no need to respond to any more unreasonable or off-topic counterarguments. An RfC closer should take the weight of the arguments into account when closing. Don't waste your breath if it's not worth it. Lizard (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per the section on this on Drmies talk page, I will close this RfC by 1800 UTC Feb 4 2017, unless useful constructive discussion takes place. I'm not going to ask for a vote, because I'.m pretty confident that my inference from this RfC is correct, everyone sans the IP believe that the DefNews is not a source, that the missile can't be proved Supersonic, and that it will not  be marked as nuclear capable. Am I right? Thanks to everyone for participating, sorry more people didn'come ;-( L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Seriously, is this what Wikipedia boils down to..a group of guys (buddys?) trying to push their point of view while ignoring several reference articles that CLEARLY states the missile is hypersonic and nuclear capable. This is giving Wikipedia a bad reputation for inaccurate information that come about from "Mob rule" despite the written evidence available proving the contrary. Y'all gonna just keep ignoring the written evidence and keep writing stuff that makes you feel happy rather than on real evidence which was already provided? Where's the real consensus?  103.27.221.123 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm too lazy to convert 1800 UTC to my own time, but I'll go ahead and agree anyway. Lizard (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  ~Noon Central time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

text: No argument there, L3X1. We got all that we need; the majority of us have reached a consensus and know how to proceed from here. It's best to close this RfC before any more WP:PERSONALATTACKs from the IP hopper devolve this discussion any further. And while indefinite/long-term semi-protection isn't completely foolproof, it at least protects the article from IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts, minimizing the chances of an incident like this from happening again. And if said IP hopper creates an account and gets to an account level capable of editing semi-protected articles, an account is a fair bit easier to deal with than various IPs. Blurp92 (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

text: No consensus has been reached, please refrain from pov pushing! Thanks103.17.199.211 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not see any POV pushing in the comments by Blurp92. If you look closely at the word 'consensus' it means 'the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned', it does not mean 'unanimous' judgement. BTW, you are not helping your own cause by using continually changing IP addresses. Other editors have little choice but to assume you are doing it deliberately to appear as if more than one person is involved, i.e. engaging in a form of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Please look it up.  merlinVtwelve (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Coming from you that's very funny, You and I both can see very clearly that the IP addresses come from different editors from several different countries. Yeah, so I'll fly to Japan today and tommorrow I'll go to Australia and the day after I'll fly back to Alabama, USA, get real brah! You should speak for yourself before pointing fingers and making false accusations! It's not gonna help you change the article! The Christian Bible Matthew 7:1-3 saids "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged," but you probably haven't accepted Jesus Christ into your heart have you? I'd be happy to tell you about Jesus Christ if you want?  You mean "Mob rule" rather than real consensus? Have you even attempted to read the various sources provided by the other editors. I just read the Indian Defence News article and it seems fine to me. I don't understand why you got to keep making noise with the articles stating that the missile is hypersonic and nuclear. The articles and references listed above clearly state that that the missile travels at hypersonic speeds and is "nuclear capable". The original article stated that the missile was hypersonic and nuclear capable and since you are trying to change and add new information to the article the onus of verifiability is now on you. If you disagree then send us a reference source that explicitly states the missle "cannot carry nuclear weapons" and travels below hypersonic speeds???103.27.221.123 (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment This blatant denial, so a SOCK investigation will be opened soon. WP:DUCK. We're not strangers to the ways and means of sockpuppetry. As for mob rule, remember that personal attack and bad language are aginst Policy, so if there is any mob nearby, you appear to be a homie!  As a Christian I can assure you that "Judge not lest ye be judged" mean to judge righteous judgement, not to abstain from judging. And as for judging, look at your own actions. You are judging "innocent", and accusing them of judging "guilty" L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  L3X1, I have a list of IP addresses and some evidence in a discussion with the concerned administrator. Please evaluate that if it is worthy from the point of this SPI. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per what you wrote on Vanamonde's page, the fact that the IPhopper is denying, and the general mysteriousness of situation, I think a SPI is good idea to pursue. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you that this merits a SPI investigation but the administrator thinks otherwise. I understand why it will be difficult with unregistered accounts but we have enough to go with. I would go ahead and open one anyways since we would then have it on records. Can you please take the lead on this since I have not really opened a SPI before. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a little confusion regarding what I said about an SPI, so I want to clear that up. SPIs are commonly used to use WP:CU and other tools to link registered accounts. Obviously, that is not relevant here. The "accounts" being discussed here are IP addresses, using a VPN. Therefore, the technical tools available during an SPI will not tell us anything. All that remains is behavioral evidence; and based on behavior, it is abundantly clear that there is only one IP user present. Therefore, an SPI will only serve to document the behavior of this IP, for future reference. It will achieve very little with respect to this dispute. IP, if you want to keep pretending you are many people, go ahead: but that will be considered disruptive editing, and the page will be semi-protected. I would strongly suggest you drop the pretense, and find reliable sources supporting your position; otherwise, drop the stick and move on. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining . I'll create a sandbox with all the evidence, unless you feel there is a better place to do that. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  Hey , while we're on the topic of Bible verses, doesn't the very same chapter the IP hopper brought up a verse from also have a verse about taking the log out of one's own eye before taking the speck out of someone else's eye? Matthew 7:5 is a verse about hypocrisy, ironically. Blurp92 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Matthew 5-7 are probably some of my favorite chapters in the NT. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC On Sources, Nukes, and Speed 

message: I'm replying in a new section because I feel it's time to bury the above discussion. Closed discussions should be closed. Anyway, guidelines are relatively easy to change but I think policy is a little more difficult. See WP:PROPOSAL for the ins and outs of proposing new policy. Personally, I don't think it would go through. There's just not enough evidence to support its necessity. That's usually how the higher-ups operate; they may empathize with your concerns but ultimately they'll need convincing evidence that it's a problem. Lizard (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Lizard the Wizard, that looks like a good place to start. I'll draft something up and give it a whirl. It's worth a shot, and perhaps may provide fuel for some interesting discussion. Although there may not be much evidence to support it, the stakes are potentially very high indeed. I will ponder carefully before proceeding. Cheers merlinVtwelve (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding pages related to nukes 

message: Despite the closed RFC all of the disruptive edits discussed in the RFC were found on the page by myself this morning, the user/users (at this level of long term dedication we might to be dealing with a nation state here) is also making themselves a nuisance over at Tuo Chiang-class corvette. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism continues 

message: Edit by User:2600:8801:2e00:1c62:ecb5:fb81:41e3:18e0 violates closed RfC On Sources, Nukes, and Speed. Whats the point of even having an RfC if the vandals can just keep copying and pasting? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is no longer protected and my be edited directly.  Please ensure that contested edits are discussed here on the talk page first. — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert recent edit by 2600:8801:2e00:1c62:ecb5:fb81:41e3:18e0