User talk:Sniperstock9041

May 2023

Please do not add or change content 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. Technopat (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last friendly... (Been here before and for the same reason).

Please do not do this again. As I am sure you can understand, the US Rowing rules take preference over a Wikipedia esitor's opinion. Anything is possible, including erratas, but the reference stands, as-is. If you want to add additional versions, always providing a specific reference from a reliable source, fine, and even great, but not simply deleting a specific reference for a specific point and substituting it for a general source, as you did. --Technopat (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>US Rowing rules take preference over a Wikipedia esitor's opinion.

You keep ignoring the fact that this isn't my opinion. This is objective fact that all experienced rowers know. Boats that are coxed have a "+" in their abbreviation. A coxed four is called a 4+, while a coxless four is called a 4-. You also seemingly have dismissed the part where I referenced our rowing glossary, where it specifically says that a "+" signifies that a boat has a cox. There is no evidence that says otherwise apart from perhaps an error in one national team's book.

You claim that I am the opinionated one, yet I literally referred to none other than the BRITISH ROWING TEAM ITSELF, which was founded a CENTURY before the US Rowing team and is also well-known. The evidence is much more in my favor than in yours, because, while you only have one article that's in your favor (and perhaps a couple other articles that aren't as high up as USR), not only does rowing terminology support my edits, but also the British rowing team itself which would be a better source because British English is closer to proper English than American English. I'm not really sure how far I have to go to convince you that what I'm saying is correct. I shouldn't be writing this much but I feel I have to to get my point across.

> but not simply deleting a specific reference for a specific point and substituting it for a general source, as you did.

Okay, but you don't define the difference between a general and specific source. If you mean the scope of my source, then my source was definitely more specific because it specifically refers to boat classes while you referenced an entire book containing a whole bunch of other stuff. If you are implying my source isn't reliable, then I don't know what to tell you because that's the UK national team you're calling unreliable with regards to rowing. If you're saying my source isn't specific (whatever that means), then you can open the sculling boat tab where is specifically calls an oct an 8x+ and not an 8x or 8x-. Sniperstock9041 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! First of all, my point is very clear: you do not simply delete an existing reference because it doesn't say what you want it to say ("editor's opinion"). What you can do, and what you should do (WP:NPOV), is add additional references that will show a casual reader that there might be a different reality/other possibilities. But I've already pointed that out to you on two occasions.
Despite the fact that something is an "objective fact that all experienced rowers know", that is not relevant here. This is an encyclopaedia, which is where people who have no idea, or very little idea about a topic go for information. So "basic" facts need to be explained and, more importantly, documented. I very much doubt that top-level rowers like Redgrave or Pinsent or any of the referees, judges, marshals and other officials, be they Brits, Yanks or otherwise, bother to read up on rowing-related articles at Wikipedia... In other words, the articles here have to explain stuff to the average layperson, not to "experienced rowers". We are not here to generate content for people who are experts in their own field.

Second, although it is irrelevant, precisely for the reasons I have set out above, as an experienced rower myself, having competed at international regattas in all the official modalities except single scull (which I only did as a training activity and for pure pleasure), I can assure you I am well aware of the use of "+" and "x" in certain categories, boat types or boat classes. (For the benefit of other readers of this thread, octuple is normally a category for Junior Under 14 and 15 crews, as in, it is not recognised at Olympic nor other international-level races in the US or UK. Not even at 2023 British Rowing Junior Championships. Need I go on? Rather, it is a recreative activity aimed mainly at getting young people interested in the sport of rowing. (More on this later.) Which is great. But not relevant to whether or not USRowing has an errata in its Rules, which is what you now claim. If so, bring it up with them. Anything is possible. But for the time being, the reference is valid and remains.)

BTW, and again irrelevant, the club I belonged to and rowed for was one of the founding members, back in the late-19th century, of what became ARA, the predecessor of today's British Rowing, the national governing body for the sport. And I do also know a bit about the history of rowing in Britain. But again, what I know is irrelevant; it has to be referenced. So if the respective Wikipedia articles on these two august institutions are to believed, it would actually seem that the US NAAO, the predecessor of USRowing, was actually founded before ARA. However, I can't really be bothered to check the available literature. Suffice to say that for you to claim, in capitals, as you do that the British body is 100 years older than its US counterpart, is, well, just plain... wrong. Of course, the first Boat Race, the annual head-to-head between Oxford and Cambridge Universities, took place in 1829, some fifty years before either the UK or US governing bodies were set up. But, again, irrelevant. That does not mean that ARA, the predecessor of the current UK body was established before the predecessor of the current US body nor, evidently, that octuples participated at that event... But I digress. (See also, if you haven't already done so, the very interesting NYT article from 1905.)

So why did I use the US Rowing Rules as a reference? Because my default setting, the one I went to reference the "fact", the British Rowing Rules of Racing, doesn't even mention octuples, never mind the abbreviation... Nor does the World Rowing Rule Book.

As for your comment "because British English is closer to proper English than American English", also irrelevant to the issue under discussion... No comment. I'm tempted, of course, but this ain't the place.

And finally, down to brass tacks: if you had included the instruction "open the sculling boat tab" in your reference, much time and energy could have been saved. And there we also find the reason why 8x+ is not included in any of the rule books: "8x+ (octuple - this type of boat is only used by used by [sic] the youngest juniors", that interesting NYT article notwithstanding. You see how everything has an explanation.

The bottom line is that I shall restore "your" additional reference to the article, adequately explained, alongside "my" reference. Meanwhile, don't go catching any crabs!

June 2023

Hello, I'm Technopat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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. Technopat (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content 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. Technopat (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Coxless four has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Single scull. Technopat (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last "friendly warning"...

You now know, fully well, the need to include references when you add content. However, for some reason, you are still not doing so. Unless you start adding references to new content, I shall have to request the intervention of an admin to explain it better to you. If you have any further question you would like to ask me regarding this issue, fine. If not, just add the references. It really is so very simple to understand why they are necessary. In fact, the whole project is based on the need to add references. --Technopat (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another final warning...

Can you provide a reliable source for this edit? Neither US Rowing (Rules of Rowing) nor British Rowing (Rules of Racing) make any mention of 4x-. So unless you provide a reference from a reliable source, and I mean a reliable source, not a blog, I shall request your account be blocked for intentionally and continuously adding false content after having been repeatedly asked to provide sources for your edits. This has been going on for far too long. Is that clear? BTW, you have been given far more warnings and opportunities than afforded to most users who insist on doing things "their way"... --Technopat (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why indeed?

As you so very obviously know the answer, instead of making pointless edits, just add the reference. And while you're at it, you might like to solve the mystery of why all those other coxed racing shells are coxed... --Technopat (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I should explain why. I'll go to the page right now and I'll add my bit on it. Wouldn't be too bad because I have the source to back it up.

Oh wait, you have repeatedly (and with no specific reason whatsoever) denied my explanation and called it "confusing" even though it's a pretty damn straightforward explanation (that the boats too fast to be steered safely without an extra person). Sniperstock9041 (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was "confusing" about the edit you refer to was your unfortunate phrasing: "Unlike the eight (8+), another 8-man racing shell with a coxswain (cox) that is seen at the Olympic Games and the Boat Race,... each rower in an oct has two oars...". If you like, I can explain why that way of putting it might be misleading to a casual reader of an encyclopaedic article (we've been through this...), but I reckon it's evident.

As for your "too fast to be steered safely without an extra person", yes, I suppose that accounts for the 2+ and the 4+, both of which, by your logic, must be faster than the 2- and 4-. And of course, following your logic, that coxed quad the kids use must be faster, and therefore more dangerous, than a mere quad. Admittedly, kids messing about in boats might be considered dangerous but they sure as hell ain't gonna go faster than a straight four. Whatever. So, while I realise that having me repeat this so often must be getting boring for you, 'cos it sure as hell is for me, please just make sure you provide suitable, as in "reliable", references for any content you wish to add. Simple, innit? BTW, blogs are not, normally, considered reliable. And blogs with loadsa advertising, even less so. --Technopat (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

k. Sniperstock9041 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, That's right. You do have to reference it...

Yes, notwithstanding your snarky edit summary, you do have to reference it. Especially as your previous edit verges on vandalism for introducing deliberately incorrect information... --Technopat (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the X-Men Origins: Wolverine plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]