User talk:203.145.94.110

Harbour Crossing Tunnel

Please stop adding references to "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" unless you can provide multiple reliable sources that illustrate this is an established name. Otherwise it just seems like an offhand term someone used in their Powerpoint presentation once. Citobun (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PowerPoint presentation? What I came across through a hyperlink on Wikipedia was like a journal paper. Please justify and supply the evidence if you would want to jump to bold allegations. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please undo only what you disagree. Overdone reverts are themselves vandalising acts. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello hello? 203.145.94.110 (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cross-Harbour Tunnel. Citobun (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Do NOT add this term again unless you can provide reliable sources that "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" is an established name. Final warning. I am tiring of this. Citobun (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually capable to comprehend what'd happened? It wasn't me who "added" the name to the navbox in Cross-Harbour Tunnel. It's there for ages. And that's something I believe to be, in your words, an "established name" given that it appeared in a journal paper-like source. What I just did to Cross-Harbour Tunnel was to undo what you've overdone in your reverts. You are the one who should be blocked for vandalising. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source you provided, if you've forgotten. It's some guy using the term on a one-off basis in a PowerPoint. Find evidence that the term is used in multiple reliable sources. Easy. Until then, stop adding it. It's not an established name. Citobun (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. That probably wasn't me who added the link to the PowerPoint presentation to the article. But I did copied and pasted the link to a paper from elsewhere on Wikipedia to this article. If you aren't actually able to comprehend what had happened and continue to give wrong accounts it's difficult for the Wikipedian community to work with you. Having a registered account doesn't make anyone wiser or more authoritative. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you may tell from my edits I'm open to using other ways or forms to refer to that tunnel, which by itself is certainly notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, however it is called. I would nevertheless reiterate that it is clear to me that that's, in your words, an "established name". You may have a different opinion but that doesn't mean you must be right and other people must have been wrong, or that only you don't disrupt and all other people do. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've edited from numerous IPs in the last few weeks, that's what happened. Citobun (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? There are so many editors who don't edit with registered accounts and you consider all of them to be the same person? 203.145.94.110 (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Citobun's comment at 13:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC) deleted by him/herself.) 203.145.94.110 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a long-time tendency that you would simply fabricate some allegations based on nothing. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed an experienced editor and reader as you tried hard to portray yourself to be, you should have been able to tell that the name "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" as been on Wikipedia across quite a handful of entries for some years — and as I said above supported by a journal paper-like source, among others. It's difficult to understand why you'd recently find this name not "established", and "tiring" of it all out of sudden. You'd better keep your hands off topics which you aren't familiar with, and work hard to contribute on other topics. My two cents. 203.145.94.110 (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources – got it. Citobun (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for asking, but are you actually able to conclude anything correctly without jumping straight to bold, groundless claims and allegations? 203.145.94.110 (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.