User talk:158.181.83.48

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

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

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

Happy editing! Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Battle of the Eastern Solomons. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Attacking an enemy with poor defense to offense ratio is a fundamental principle in warfare. i don't agree that this is synthesis. As for the lack of gunfire: how do you find a reference to something that didn't happen.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Banner talk 15:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

So what information do you actually challenge? A challenge has to be credible,

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

A user called "The Banner" who is collecting ridiculous badges on his user page is proving to be an obstacle. Are there no standards for toy law enforcement characters? See the change log for Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Requiesting citations just because. Reverting an actual citation in the heat of the shit show. Is there no burden at all placed on the request for citations? Several trivially verifiable pieces of information were challenged and this stubbornness continued after my objections to the idiotic interference 158.181.83.48 (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Doubling down on personal attacks is generally not a good way to get unblocked. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

---

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 are focusing on colorful commentary instead of relevant facts? How about you treat this as a training exercise for future endeavours in the realm of reasonable judgement. would that help?

Adding reliable sources to your edits is a better idea than editwarring and personal attacks. The Banner talk 03:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"idiocy" refers to an activity, not a personality trait. opinions about a person not directed at a person are not an attack. some people have better access to sources and will correct inaccuracies in short order. i am fairly sure the article on the naval battle of guadalcanal has been factually wrong for a very long time concerning the status of O'Bannon.

furthermore, information that has already been sourced and is one mouse click away in an article directly linked need not be sourced again. it is easily verifiable.

Split all the hairs you like, but the simple fact remains that your behavior is unacceptable. You are behaving in an excessively hostile manner, and so long as you continue to do so, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.

As for sources, the burden is on you to directly cite high quality, reliable sources in the articles you edit. Simply waving your hand that sources are available elsewhere is not acceptable. Nor is assuming that individuals who have "better access to sources" will come along behind you to clean up your edits. If you want to spend much more time around here, you need to learn to take responsibility for your edits and your behavior. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ship gun fire-control system, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

misapplication of citation rule. removal of work in progress without there being an credible challenge to or controversy about the truthfulness of the material. Specifically as an example the list of ship classes recently added to Ship gun fire-control system. What exactly is being disrupted? There is a disclaimer advising against a high level of reliability at the start of the section. Requesting confirmation this is the way wikipedia does business, or whether this is considered moderator malfunction.

Decline reason:

Yes, this is the way wikipedia does business; it is not moderator malfunction. You've now been blocked twice for the same bad behavior. Perhaps it's a sign. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Wikipedia:Citation needed or "Category:Articles lacking sources". is this how wikipedia does business or persistent moderator misconception?

You were blocked (in part) for edit-warring. Your first edit after your previous block expired was to revert. Your second edit called the other editor "idiotic" (the other reason I blocked you before). Does this really need to be explained to you? Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

my problem is that a user was edit warring my edits, what am i supposed to do. arbitration is a logical consequence, stubborn revert leads to arbitration. anyway, when the ban is lifted i will go through my last month's edits and remove all unsourced contributions that slipped by the moderators myself.

First of all, I am not an admin. Never been, never will. Secondly: what do you not understand from "unsourced info"? You added the info, so it is up to you to add sources to prove that the info is correct. The Banner talk 16:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

i understand sourcing. i just have a different interpretation how it is supposed to work. Clearly the removal of unsourced material is not mandatory and the addition of such material can be a useful contribution, even if it is not a perfect contribution. When i read wikipedia, i usually correct a few errors per day. if there was nothing there, nothing could be corrected. There are also certainly people who can find better sources than me. For example there is certainly somewhere on some US government server and authority source for installations of weapons control systems on navy vessels, all in one document. chances are such a person will object to the inaccurate information and provide the best possible source. If such a person never stumbled upon a work in progress on a wikipedia page that did 90% of the work for his expert fingers to finish, the contribution would never materialize. "idiotic" is used to refer to something that is simple. i didn't call you stupid.

So two blocks and I do not know how many reverts later, you still did not get the polite hint that the community disagrees with your personal opinion? The Banner talk 20:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

how do you know? pick a random member of the community and see what fraction of the information they add to wikipedia is sourced. how many times is a revert of yours overruled as overzealous? Fpr example if somebody spends a lot of work to make something well written and pretty, but provides no citations? maybe the community is not quite as much behind you as you imagine. i wouldn't feel comfortable making statements about what the community thinks. leaning out of the window like that.

anyway, we talked for a while. if you want you can go back and count the points i made that you were not immediately inclined to object to, because it would have been complicated. the wikipedia community believes in an ideal, no question about that. Many governments believe in an ideal of a drug free world, but few are willing to adopt a shoot on sight policy towards drug dealers, or even a general rule to allow to put hands into pockets on mere suspicion. and drugs are plenty of times a matter of life and death. the world is a complicated place, far from an ideal, is it not?

Your recent editing history at QF 3-pounder Hotchkiss shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Banner talk 14:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

February 2022, round three

Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 23:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Round three? How about you start and tell me where i am likely to find a citation on the sum of all barrels in a battle. or how likely it is that the /25 is not in fact a low velocity gun. (a) it is obvious knowledge to anyone with basic understanding of guns. (b) the velocity is right there in the 5-inch/25 page. i am not going to do it. the number of barrels will just remain to be wrong and the subtlety of the short caliber will elude the reader.

I guess so.

But you still have to provide sources, as is told you many times before. The Banner talk 23:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

i don't think so. it's explanatory synthesized information. lack of a citation marker is entirely appropriate. or else complete removal of that kind of force comparison.

Just source it. At least, I expect that you found the info somewhere. Naming that "somewhere" makes the article more verifiable and reliable. The Banner talk 01:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

i can add numbers found on wikipedia infoboxes about ships. there is no source.

So you have no proof that what your are adding is verifiable? The Banner talk 02:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

it is based on design properties of classes of ships. there is no controversy about those properties. they are easy to find without an explicit reference.

We work on sources, not on "easy to find". The Banner talk 10:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

that's unsustainable. the line has to be drawn somewhere. If i was to mention "Kongo fired its 14-inch guns" in a sentence, i wouldn't have to provide a source for the 14, when it is in an article about a naval battle. i might have to do it in an article about coffee beans, because a reader there might not know how to interpret the information. Again, the information is based on properties of whole classes of ships which anyone with a basic understanding of the matter can easily research. Sometimes there are just conflicts: some information is not authoritative, but still useful for understanding. Assuming there is no citation for the information, it either has to be removed and with it the understanding removed or it stays and with it stays some damage to wikipedia credibility. Maybe a footnote could resolve the issue, saying that the numbers are illustrative based on typical capabilities of ship classes involved and not proven 100% accurate facts about the actual ships involved. Surely wikipedia has means to allow incorporation of synthesized information.

No, they don't. They disallow synthesized information, made-up information, hoaxes and unsourced information. Wikipedia wants and needs sourced information to maintain verifiability and reliability. If you do not want to play along Wikipedias rules, than you will have a problem. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. The Banner talk 11:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

except that adding numbers is not synthesis as wikipedia uses the term

and that's not just my opinion. Wikipedia:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not explanation, Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P5

sooo. can i go ahead now without getting shot down again? you could clean your kitchen or mow the lawn in front of your house for a change. i hear it is at this very moment not conforming to best lawn practices.

Washing up and laundry are already done. I have no garden. Sad to say, you will have to add sources. The Banner talk 14:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

you did not convince me of that.

At your own risk, my friend. Please do not complain about blocks due to disruptive editing/adding unsourced info. The Banner talk 16:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

i am still undecided about that. what are you going to do about that latest unsourced edit that changed the number back to 56 on the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal page?

The same as I did with you: asking for sources. The Banner talk 22:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to QF 3-pounder Hotchkiss. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

is this an automated revert, or did somebody push a button?

This is a revert based on disruptive editing due to adding unsourced information. Not automated. The Banner talk 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

there is a lot of unsourced information in that article, what makes mine special?

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at QF 3-pounder Hotchkiss, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 11:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

USS Saratoga CV-3

I see from the activity above that you are already aware of the edit-warring policy and so I will ask that you take any concerns to the article talk page, instead of continuing to revert your edit back in. Thank you - wolf 23:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Nick-D does not understand what it means for an edit being "likely to be challenged", especially since there are plenty enough readers who can judge well-established facts without citations. furthermore, a single revert with added explanation in the commit message is not an edit war by definition.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Block imposed for continued additions of unreferenced material to articles and related edit warring despite the previous block and multiple requests above. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EDITWAR for advice. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the phrase "give sources". You have a talk page full of request for sources but you still come up with unsourced info. Not even your previous blocks seem able to relay the message that you have to source your edits. The Banner talk 10:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

you promised to revert this unsourced edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal&oldid=1073230231

---