Maritime guy

Hello, Maritime guy, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 18:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

FYI

These "see my edit on... (some other page)" summaries are not particularly helpful. Perhaps you could consider including a link to a diff of your changes, in these cases? - wolf 05:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI 2

Hello again, many of the pages you edit are on my watchlist and so I've seen the effort you're making to keep some articles up to date. You've been doing a good job and it's appreciated, but there is one issue with some of your edits that I wanted to address. You have been adding cites to your edit summaries, instead of adding them into the article to support the content you're changing. These refs are generally useless this way and make it appear that your changes are unsupported/ original research. People will generaly not search out article histories to find sources and then try to match them up with the content... and they shouldn't have to either. This is why we have the cite guidelines and templates. People researching, (for example; navy ships), should have refs readily available for whichever piece of information they are looking up, eg: milestone dates, table entries, characteristics, events, etc., etc. When you update an article, and have a source to suppprt your edit, please use the url for it to create a citation using the relevant template, and attach it to the content you've added or changed. If you need help with this, just ask, and you'll receive it in short order. Thank you for this, and thanks again for all your efforts so far. - wolf 09:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I will add refs to the article if there is an article dedicated to the ships on enwp. Thanks! Maritime guy (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Edits

I didn't want to do the template thing and make a not-so-great situation worse, so I will instead just add this link, as it's potentially a pre-requisite, and also ask that you please not revert disputed content while it's being discussed. Also, when it comes to WP, the more sourcing the better, especially when it comes to primary vs secondary refs. If there is a sentence about mail-order TNT, (no id req'd!) in an article about Acme, and there are two sources attached... of course they're bound to duplicate each other, they're about the same thing! That isn't a reason to remove one. And if one is primary, the other secondary, the secondary one is the one the we want between the two (though it's better to keep both). Have a nice day - wolf 19:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

In your words, if there is one news story from AP entitled "DC’s cherry blossoms coming early due to confusing weather" in the article on enwp as the primary source for the relevant information, then you need to have at least one same news story/stories by CBS News, ABC News, (you can even add two same news stories by ABC News in different editions as ABC News has published the news story in the Lifestyle edition while publishing it in their Politics edition) The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times or USNWR, etc., which reproduces from AP as the secondary source, as the content needs to be supported by secondary sources. Right? Maritime guy (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In the case of the navalnews.com ref in USS John H. Dalton, it's a situation like the one I described above. Maritime guy (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

AP is a secondary source, just like ABC, CBS, etc. The National Park Service, which was cited as a source in the AP article, along with their own site, nps.gov) is a primary source. In the USS John Dalton article, the NVR is a primary source, navalnews.com is a secondary source. That's why is beneficial to have both of them. - wolf 21:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the entire news story was written by AP in their own words, not reproduced simply from the National Park Service webpage like the navalnews.com does. Hence, as an example to be used with the equivalent of the USN and navalnews.com, the news story from AP is considered here as your primary source similar to the USN's pr, and CBS News, ABC News, etc., who reproduced the news story from AP, is considered here as your secondary source. Just as you wouldn't put the same news story from CBS News, ABC News, etc, as the secondary source in the article on any wiki when there has been a news story from AP (or the same news story from other news websites, including all mentioned above), you shouldn't put reproduced USN pr from the navalnews.com as the secondary source in USS John H. Dalton when there has been the USN's pr. Besides, the USN's pr is your primary source here, not NVR! Maritime guy (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep going in circles with you here. Read WP:PTS. The preference is to have secondary sourcing if its available. If only primary sourcing is available, then we can go with that. If both are, then there's certainly no harm in having both. For some reason, you wanted to swap one ref for another, leaving only one ref total for the page and then you complain and try to start an edit war when I re-add the orinal source and keep yours? (And since then I've added a third). Take this to WP:DR if you feel you need to, but I really don't see a need to waste anymore time on this. - wolf 04:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Reproducing primary source content, as the navalnews.com did here, shouldn't be used as a secondary source to the primary source in the articles on any wp, which I already made pretty clear on the topic. Additionally, I would like to remind you that my revert in USS John H. Dalton was made before your discussions were first posted on the discussion page of the list article and here, and then you were reverting my this revert. I didn't want to raise this second matter with you, but I think I have to remind you of this since you bring it up again. Maritime guy (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Still? This is from like... a week ago. And there is nothing new here in furtherance of a discussion, or an effort at a resolution, this is just more arguing, about why you think you're right based on your interpretation of primary and secondary sourcing. You say:

- "Reproducing primary source content, as the navalnews.com did here, shouldn't be used as a secondary source to the primary source in the articles on any wp, which I already made pretty clear on the topic." - If that makes sense to you, that's one thing, but hoping it makes sense at at a DRN is another. And you haven't provided any policy to support this statememt.
- "Additionally, I would like to remind you that my revert in USS John H. Dalton was made before your discussions were first posted on the discussion page of the list article and here, and then you were reverting my this revert." - Erm, yes... that is the usual order of things on WP; somebody gets reverted, they don't like it, often more reverts will follow, but it always, one way or t'other, ends up on a talk page somewhere. But as for who did what when;

1. I created the stub, including the original, secondary source.
2. You then removed that sole secondary source and instead added a primary source, with no reason provided.
3. I then re-added the original secondary source, while retaining the primary source you added.
4. You again removed the original, secondary source, while retaining the primary source you had added, and did so while there was an active discussion taking place about sourcing (that I initiated).

That's is, as they say, just not cricket. I have no idea how you think your edits are justifiable, or even sensible, nor do I understand why you want to keep dragging this on and on (and on), but as I already said, I'm not interested in going round and round with you about this. This is your talk page, if you feel like you really need to go over this again, or just really want the last word... go for it. But don't expect any more replies, and please don't ping me, because even if you're not, I am done here. Have a nice day. - wolf 23:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207). While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. - wolf 01:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

See my latest reply to you in the topic on the talk page of the USNS Earl Warren (T-AO-207). Maritime guy (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance.
Note: Also read Help:Notifications to learn how to ping correctly, but only after you've read the notice about canvassing above to learn when you can and cannot notify others. - wolf 01:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

For Hwasong-18

Thank you for your opinion, I posted my refutation on your opinion of Missile General Bureau on my talk page Geoarchive (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving articles from USNS to SS

Firstly looking at these articles they have a diesel motor. This makes them a motorship so the appropriate prefix will be MV or MS. Secondly when they are sold for scrapping or further commercial use that is the time the name and prefix may change. Thirdly articles should be placed at the best known name, on these ships that is likely to remain the USNS name. Please revert all your moves Lyndaship (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to actually edit the text of these articles and explain and cite the name changes. I get that these were transferred to MARAD, but you need to cite a source for the name change in these articles. An article named MV Gary I. Gordon makes no sense without something in the body of the article that says why the name is different and a citing a reliable source. You should not be moving these articles without first citing the name change and fixing the text, etc. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to add to that if you won't or can't add & edit the text of an article when needed, you can always post a note at WT:SHIPS or WT:MILHIST to ask for assistance and it will most likely be addressed, (I can't see why it wouldn't). Better that than to just leave an article in an unsuitable state. - wolf 03:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of current ships of the United States Navy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
This warning is a pre-requisite prior to reporting you for disruptive edit/edit warring. - wolf 14:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhh, please don't to abused the rules related to enwp. Maritime guy (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

What is this...? A 'pot/kettle' kinda thing? How about you stop "abusing" that revert button? You were the first, so it falls to you to explain your edit. Simply adding a link and saying "go look at..." whatever, is not sufficient. I suggest you self-revert and actually address that particular edit on the tp, like you're supposed to. - wolf 15:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

For my point, I've already explained twice on the talk page of the list, and both times you didn't take any further disagreement, whereas I haven't to explain again, again and each time in an endless loop, as you require. (when you're doing at the list that you did) But it doesn't mean that you can't take a new disagreement again, however, if you continue with your editing to the list, then I'm considering that you've chosen instead the voice within the talk page with just reverts, and so doing I at the same time. Maritime guy (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Oy. This makes resolving issues with you difficult. All this energy wasted on reverts, smart-ass comments, and arguing about... arguing, when after the first revert if that edit you could'be simply gone to the tp and said why you don't think that entry should have that source, basically leaving it without any source.

Previous times, you mit-picked over various minutiae related to sourcing, and when inquiries were made, you respond these circular arguments that after a time, one just says "why bother?". But, I am asking you to now provide a specific reason for this speific revert. Can you do that? - wolf 16:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Erm... nevermind. (I thought there was something familiar about you.) - wolf 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what you're indicating... Maritime guy (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Dude, the whole debate is moot now anyway, might as well forget about it. Word of advice, if you really want to come back and edit again, (and I suspect you do) and you want to do so with a legitimate account, with no worries about getting caught and blocked again, with all your work being undone, then you need to stop this act with the "gee, it was just a proxy" bit and any other excuses. They have capabilities to track down sock accounts that you wouldn't believe. And they don't like being lied to, or having their time wasted. The best thing you can do is stay away for at least 6 months (12 would be better), then come back and using your very first, original account, post an unblock request. Admit to all socking, name every account, both regiastered and IP, that you ever edited with, show them that you studied and learned the socking policy, that you understand why we have it and why it's important to follow it. Then promise to follow it, and apologize for both the lying and the socking, and you just might have a chance of being allowed back. But that's ptetty much the only way, afaik. Good luck - wolf 20:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) (jmho)

Sorry, however, the ongoing situation didn't change any of my thoughts in relation to your edits on the list, (including your call for explanation in an endless loop and your abuse of the rules). At the same time, I never had another account on all Wikimedia projects, and I've always relied on an open proxy to edit on enwp, in conformity with the guidelines. All I know for myself is that I'm accessing enwp through an open proxy shared by multiple people, and I have no knowledge of and no contact with other individuals and accounts, (including the account incorrectly assumed to be my account as its sockpuppet) excluding myself own, on this open proxy, whereas I don't think that I shall be or need to responsible for other individual or account on the same open proxy due to their behavioral, mistakes, and such. Maritime guy (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The last thing you should be concerned about is any editing dispute we've previously had. You have larger concerns than that atm, and as far as that is concerned... well, it's unfortunate that you want to go that way (the open proxy excuse vs the very sound advice above). Anyway, final word of advice; when you're blocked, you're really only supposed to use your talk page to post unblock requests, and you have an open request right now, so you should wait until there is a response to that from an admin, otherwise you might lose your tp access. So, I'm gonna stop posting here. You should reconsider, but anyway... have a nice day - wolf 04:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - wolf 15:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (List of current ships of the United States Navy) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The reasons that I detailed in my latest reply on topic September 2023 above here and it's User:Thewolfchild abusing the rules.

Decline reason:

Please only make one request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2023 (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.

The reason for your block has changed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

But the fact is that I never had another account, and made you incorrectly assume that it was possible because I rely on an open proxy to edit on enwp due to the country where I am based.

Decline reason:

This appears to me to go beyond simply sharing an IP. SQL^{Query Me!} 05:06, 13 October 2023 (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.