User talk:Rabbo375

Welcome
Hi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Some other site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

Happy Editing! OgamD218 (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Wikipedia is not a forum and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your opinion on superpowers and your speculation about a European army are not valid contributions. So, formally,... Hello, I'm John Maynard Friedman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Superpower seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @John Maynard Friedman it's not speculation, the European army is being talked about due to the situation with Russia, and again the idea of the US being the only super power is outdated
 * I'm trying to post links to websites that say the EU is a new superpower but it won't let me Rabbo375 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is speculation. As European army explains, no such army exists. Defence is explicitly excluded from the treaties of European Union. The Permanent Structured Cooperation agreement is as close as it gets and that includes non-EU as well as some [not all] EU members. If the source you want to cite is on the block-list at Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it is because they are not credible. Wikipedia describes what actually is, not what might be. Please ask at the WP:Teahouse if you need further explanation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @John Maynard Friedman i posted the sources to this reply to show you and it wouldn't let me, I didn't try to post it in the actual edit, but regardless I'm gathering my sources for my points on how
 * 1. many political scientists and economic and military researchers agree that the EU and China are world superpowers, even though the term is very outdated, power today is about political, economic and military capabilities on the global scale, that's what defines a countries power and influence, I was simply trying to update the wiki for these modern times.
 * 2. EU member states have been talking about improving defense across the union since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they are in process of setting up a joint military task force of soldiers and vehicles that will be ready for deployment at a moment's notice, I never once said that the European army did exist, I simply said that due to its possible creation Europe will become an even bigger military power, EU has one of the largest trading blocs in the world, it's GDP is ranked 3rd in the world, it has a massive global influence in Asia and Africa, it's also a nuclear power and it's combined member state forces rival China and the US in terms of soldiers, vehicles, weapons and equipment, this is why many groups see the EU as the global political, economic and military power that it is
 * 3. China has the world's largest military and is the world's second largest economic power in GDP and first in PPP, China has a massive global influence that stretches from all of Asia to South America, they are rapidly turning into a developed country and move more towards a combination of production and consumption, they are also central to the global economy being one of the world's largest manufacturing powers, they are also a nuclear power, this is why many groups are seeing China as the global political, economic and military power that it is
 * 4. i love political science, and this is why the idea of the United States being the only super power is just frankly ridiculous, they certainly were the only one after the dissolution of the USSR, but to call them the only one now is just baffling, a superpower is a nation that can exert it's influence worldwide, be it political, economic or military and the EU and China certainly achieve this they are the two largest economic and military powers right behind the US in terms of GDP, the EU might not have a combined defense force (yet) but it's pretty obvious that with the invasion of Ukraine, the rise of Christian nationalism in America and trumpers in Congress and senate, leading less US involvement in military matters abroad, like I said EU leaders have already began plans to form a multi state task force, because they are realising they need to be independent in these modern times, yes it's not a precursor to a united army, but it's certainly in my view an indication of where things are going
 * I'm still new to editing, and need to learn how to insert the references which I will soon and I will use sources to back up everything I have said in the edits, I respect Wikipedia for the marvelous tool it is, it's why I donate every month, but I just believe that the discussed topics really need updating, I mean even in the article itself it says that experts dont agree on what defines a superpower these days and it goes on to say why above countries will soon rival them, I just believe that by the points that I have explained, that time has come. Rabbo375 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can provide reliable sources, even if you just write it as, that is good enough: if the source good and you have summarised it accurately, an experienced editor will format it nicely. The hard part of being a Wikipedia contributor is finding good sources that give a dispassionate analysis of the topic; making them look nice is the easy bit. Specifically:
 * 1. Yes, definition is difficult, which is why you must be careful to read and report what they say, even (especially!) when they disagree with your ideas. You should study confirmation bias carefully: it is a trap that we all fall into sooner or later.
 * 2. Yes, some members have that view but want to do it through NATO, not start again. (and yes, Europe in general and Ukraine in particular certainly recognise that a Putin-admiring Trump administration might very well have reacted rather differently). Anyway, "talk is cheap": if and when something actually gets off the ground, we report it. Not before.
 * 3. Yes, I agree that it is certainly getting that way but it is not there yet. But my opinion is just as irrelevant as yours. What matters is the consensus of reliable sources.
 * 4. See #3 and my previous reply re the hypothetical European Army and the actual PSC. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 20:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dudhhr okay I'll add the sources in Rabbo375 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of aircraft carriers
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of aircraft carriers, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_aircraft_carriers&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1158397698%7CList%20of%20aircraft%20carriers%5D%5D Ask for help])

Note
Sometimes navies are measured in tonnage as opposed to numbers of ships. The US Navy could have just one carrier, while the PLAN could have 300 row-boats with either a gpmg or a locker full of rpg's... the Cninese would have more numbers of hulls, but the USN would still be the largest, most powerful navy. (fyi & jmho) - w o lf  04:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thewolfchild powerful is subjective and has no factual meaning, your characterization of "row boats" is laughable, having more aircraft Carriers means nothing, a single submarine can't take out an aircraft carrier, a single missle can take out an aircraft carrier, China has world's largest number of frigates and submarines and has more corvettes, patrol vessels and anti mine vessels, i will write that the US has largest navy by tonnage and second largest navy by number of ships, if it keeps getting deleted I'll just assume that the people on this site can't handle the fact that the US doesn't have the best or most, in relation to military matters. Rabbo375 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, whoa... retract the claws, I'm just letting you know that this has come up before and I would sugesst proposing changes to the talk page first. They can become contentious, and it would help if you were to seek input from more experienced users. Collaboration is one of the cornerstones of the project. Have a nice day - w o lf  04:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild I've added the fact that the US has more aircraft Carriers and destroyers, but that it still comes second as China has more frigates, corvettes, Submarines, patrol vessels and anti mine vessels, frigates and submarines definitely don't come under support vessels as they are used in the same fashion as destroyers and are around same size, I also kept one of the most powerful as this is subjective, the US has more aircraft Carriers and destroyers but China is better in all other areas, couple this with China beating the US in various areas of military, logistics, economic capabilities and natural resources and calling the US navy (or army) the most powerful is not objective, it's definitely one of the most and undoubtedly has the most powerful air force as it has the biggest air force, coupled with most amount of aircraft Carriers, but in terms of other areas, the US doesn't lead in all sectors. Rabbo375 (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild I apologize, I recently did an essay on this, and was discussing it with people on Reddit and was just bombarded with people trying to equate Chinas navy with being tug boats or something, so for that I apologize, I just thought it made zero sense how the PLAN Chinese navy wiki literally says it has the largest navy, so just thought it was weird that this page says the US was the largest when it's factually incorrect, but I've gave it a source and listed what you said about tonnage. thanks Rabbo375 (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) 2 - This is part of problem. Instead of going back to the article and making reactive changes, you should post your suggested changes to the talk page first. That way, other editors can have a chance to help shape the content with more balance and better sources, and there is less disruption to the article. - w o lf  05:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of aircraft carriers
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of aircraft carriers, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_aircraft_carriers&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1158397698%7CList%20of%20aircraft%20carriers%5D%5D Ask for help])