80.167.146.141

April 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (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.

Vandalism

Vandalizing is not good for Wikipedia. If you want to know the credibility and rules of wikipedia, please refer to here, here, and here. Page blanking and removing information about a topic is vandalism, and you also create extreme edit summaries which you speak about the misinformation of Wikipedia. Luckily, I don't have to call an administrator, because our system has caught you.

Thank you, and please don't vandalize.

BillClinternet (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This has to a troll idea, right? I posted the correct information about the Danish F-35A procurement; 27 ordered, 21 to be delivered to the Royal Danish Airforce and 6 to be permanently stationed at Luke AFB. Then this Swiss army (what ever he is or believes about himself) randomly massacres the information that is given in the 3 articles that is even quoted, and he is allowed to continue??

Now, I happens to have worked in the RDAF, I KNOW fact. If one cant post them here because of Swiss trolls, I might have to take other steps against the misinformation you allow.

Good day 80.167.146.141 (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no administrative duties on wikipedia, but I remain civil to my peers. Wikipedia spreads misinformation at the least and most hoaxes and vandals are caught almost instantly with our system. I am a volunteer on Wikipedia and it is my duty to help it in any way I can.

I suggest, seeing that you've already been blocked for a period of just over a day, that you stop vandalizing and make good edits for the betterment on knowledge being spread to those who are less fortunate.

BillClinternet (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at my editing history and brings the artcle back to what it was before I lost patience with that Swiss army saboteur and began deleting his misinformation. And then I suggest you stop him from editing anything

n Wikipedia. I have had a look at a few other of the articles he has edited, and a few check-ups using google or reading a few of the articles that others has so vigilantly supplied as sources, there is a pattern.... He simply deletes correct information an puts in "cant write that here because of censor" information. 80.167.146.141 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is getting old. Call an administrator please. I want a word with some one who actually can do something. After almost an hour, his misinformation is still in place and you dont answer back when I write to you.

Be polite to your peers please, and send an administrator my way.

Good day

A former employee of the RDAF 80.167.146.141 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If I am being blocked from posting CORRECT information, because of complains from a Swiss army saboteur who butches articles,who spreads misinformation all around him, then I suggest you block him too.

All I did was post the correct information about the Danish F-35 program, and he immidiately set upon buthering it

When I after 3 or 4 attempts at posting the correct information saw that he kept deleting it, yes I started to delete his false information. If that constitutes vandalism, then by all means. But if not, Wikipedia better adopt a policy of fact checking amateour posters like this Swiss army saboteur, BEFORE they post. Like you could for example contact the RDAF?

Good day,

A former employee of the RDAF, WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE DANISH F-35 PROGRAM 80.167.146.141 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering you blanked part of the article and inserted this, "If whom ever posts this misinformation dont stop, this will become a major problem. There was 3 articles posted as quotes to the information given here, but you did not even read those did you? All the answers you need can be found there. This is a matter of mis-information, so STOP," and then also made the edit summary the same likeness, it is considered vandalism.

Making your vandalism blatantly visible, it had allowed Wikipedia's systems to see what you'd been doing and automatically made you on their review list due to your constant vandalizing edits. If you think that the article may be spreading misinformation, you can report that to an administrator. If the dispute continues, you can make a request to the Arbitration Committee, which solves the upmost of disputes, but this should always be your last resort.

If you review the article you vandalized (whether you believe it or not, it is explained on the link I provided), and review the citations, you must come to a common answer.

Additionally, you can find your own source of information and then add it to the article with the correct citations, but you cannot page blank or vandalize.

Please make sure you read the following before you edit pro-block.

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

Wikipedia:Vandalism

Wikipedia ensures every user the right to edit, as long as they follow policies, guidelines, manual of style, don't vandalize, and remain civil among their peers.

Causing destruction to wikipedia will only weaken your chances of succeeding and gaining a reputation on Wikipedia. Vandalizing Wikipedia is illegal, but it certainly is unkind.

BillClinternet (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you even SEE what I posted the first 6 times?? As in before I grew tired of that person who kept vandalising the truth and edited it back to being mis-informative?? But you have still not sent an administrator my way, so please send me to the Arbitration Committee, as I am really annoyed that Wikipedia allows for this kind of spreading of miss-information. If you can really see what I posted, DO review the whole editing story, and see what I posted before losing patience. 80.167.146.141 (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

An administrator was called, which is what lead to your block.

Again, Wikipedia's main focus is to deliever factual information to people. The statement before your own on the article had references, and a whole section was basically removed.

I will call an admin, and they will explain it to you. Considering you allegedly were a former worker of the institution, maybe times have changed? If you believe that the article is spreading misinformation, it is ok to remove it as long as you insert the correct information as well as the correct citations to prove it is real. Furthermore, you can leave a message on the page's talk page and await a reply from someone who may know a lot about that.

For now, please remain civil to all users and do not vandalize or lash out on other users,

BillClinternet (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Just NO. If you even bothered to read the articles provided as source you would see that the RDAF has bought 27 F-35A fighters. 6 is to remain permanently on Luke AFB for training and conversion. 21 is to be delivered to FSN SKP of the RDAF beginning November 2023. So far not a one has arrived at FSN SKP (and I live 2 km from the base, so believe me I would know). So why the .... is it that you allow some nobody to delete the correct information an place mis-information instead, just because he lives in a totally other country and knows what about the RDAF?? HAVE you even SEEN what he left behind?? And you call me a vandal? Believe me I look forward to a word with that so-called administrator. And no, things has not changed since I stopped, so stop trying to patronise your so-called peer, who is spreading mis-information. 80.167.146.141 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now corrected it back, so please try not to let any one "vandalise" it, will you?? 80.167.146.141 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to address that users that are in communication with me should always remain civil.

Your edits have been blatantly disruptive and vandalism. You have switched whole sections into rants about Wikipedia's so called, "misinformation."

You have remained having your attitude after my civility and respect towards explaining why you'd been wrong about this. Your first edit after you'd been blocked, was the same as the previous edits you'd done. Your behavior is upmost disrespectful and not okay, and it damages Wikipedia's reputation as well as your own.

If you have a content dispute about so called misinformation (when there are visible citations on the said misinformation) report it here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

I advise you to take a step back and look at what you've done. I additionally suggest for you to change your attitude and make a common answer as to if you're wrong or right about this situation.

Remain civil and respectful to your peers, and do not vandalize. If you vandal the same article repeatedly (again) then you will immediately be referred to an admin and it could lead to an indefinite block from editing.

BillClinternet (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is it that you are so upset about having the correct information shown on Wikipedia? Can you PLEASE show me a source for the information you allow to be posted? It is so blatantly wrong, and one who reads the provided sources can see that. I tried to be polite, but the blatant removing of the right information really begins to make me annoyed. If that makes you feel sorry for your self, then you should probably try not to refer to some random peer who dont really know what he is posting. I really also doubt that you read the whole posting history of mine here, because if you did, you would actually see that I the first many times only corrected the facts. Until they started to repost wrong information.

Here: Denmark receives two more F-35s, taking total fleet to six | Defense Brief (defbrief.com)

Onsdag fik Danmark sit første F-35 fly - men det står stadig i Texas - TV 2

"Til sammenligning er der bestilt 27 F-35 fly, hvoraf 6 skal blive permanent i USA og bruges til træning af danske piloter.

De 21 andre skal stationeres på Flyvestation Skrydstrup vest for Haderslev, efterhånden som de kommer til Danmark. De første af dem forventes at ankomme i 2023." 80.167.146.141 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And here:

Ofte stillede spørgsmål (forsvaret.dk) 80.167.146.141 (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And here:

Amerikanske F35-fly kommer på træningsmission | TV SYD 80.167.146.141 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If you would like this to be added to the page, you may add in the correct information in place of the alleged misinformation, then you must add it in the correct place and use correct and reliable sources.

I will tell you that your actions before were vandalism and the reason that lead to your 31 hour block. I will warn you once more that thereafter this message, if persistent vandalism continues, it will lead to block on editing from your IP and rights to making an account will be restricted, therefore blocking all edits from you.

I would like you to be aware a request for the page's semi-protection has been initiated, and thereafter, if accepted, you will need to create or have an account created for yourself.

Please be civil and respectful,

BillClinternet (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, send an administrator my way. You are beginning to sound like a broken record. I even provided you with the relevant source for correct information, from the Danish Defense Ministry... Do you think you and your peers can out-know them?? 80.167.146.141 (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not denied that your information was misleading. I am only proving to you that you had vandalized. If you'd like to add the information to the page in place of the other information, you of course can, but please cite it.

BillClinternet (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The citation IS already there. I just used it, read it...

And "I have not denied that your information was misleading"... Are you kidding me. It is the information that is already there that are mis-leading.

Send an administrator my way, please. 80.167.146.141 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Since you are currently not breaking any rules, I cannot have an administrator assess the situation. You may go to the Teahouse, or go to the admins' noticeboard.

BillClinternet (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Send an administrator my way, please. I just want the right information to be posted. If some Swiss peer of yours keep removing facts, then I want to talk to an administrator. Please. Or leave my corrections be. The scource is already there, they say it all. 80.167.146.141 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

So you are basicly ying that if I post the correct information again, and admin will talk to me? Good.a 80.167.146.141 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Saying** 80.167.146.141 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Now I have violated the rules again by posting the correct information and wikipedia keeps editing it back to being misinformation. Will you send an administrator my way now? Or do you wont me to go public with the story on how you spread misinformation on purpose because of how your so-called system works? 80.167.146.141 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please request for an admin yourself and stop vandalizing.

BillClinternet (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No. YOU are the one who threatened me with an administrator if I kept up. Now you carry out that threat, thank you. 80.167.146.141 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh and since this Deny thinks he has to get involved, I think you know that I can not contact an administrator because I am blocked. So please send an administrator my way. 80.167.146.141 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Due to your disruptive editing and not remaining the value of the 4th pillar of the five pillars, it seems that an administrator has already assessed the situation and gave you a block for one week.

It seems clear to me that an administrator has already done their job correctly.

BillClinternet (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

P.S. You may also want to reference Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Credibility, Wikipedia:Reliability. BillClinternet (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if you want to report that there is a dispute between the content of an article, refer here to report it : Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard BillClinternet (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Void the upper message - since the dispute is already in discussion, using the noticeboard is not needed.

BillClinternet (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

April 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

• IP, do not make any edits to this page except an unblock request. BillClinternet, do not make any more posts to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

---