Talk:HMS Ocean (L12)/Archive 2

Sale to Brazil
- Stop removing sourced content and trying to debate this via continuous revert-edit summaries. You were reverted, as per WP:BRD, if you disagree with the revert, then you come here to the talk page and initiate a discussion. (I shouldn't have to, but here it is). Please read Wikipedia's sourcing policy, particularly Primary vs Secondary and Tertiary sources. If you still dispute the content, then bring your issue(s) here. Thank you - the WOLF  child  12:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Brazil say quote all they want about HMS Ocean but the ship is owned by the British M.O.D - that is Ministry Of Defence, the British Government and the UK tax payer.


 * Until an official statement is issued by the UK then nothing is confirmed.


 * Please stop changing things to how you like them - like you do with the American Naval vessels - wasp & America etc.


 * On this website you are supposed to be neutral and factual and you are failing on both of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pam-javelin (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * First off, if you had bothered to read the sources, including the additional ones I added after the revert, you would see that Brazilian military and gov't officials have confirmed the purchase of Ocean. I also added a confirmation from the UK Defense Journal. We don't need "an official announcement from the British gov't." You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. That's why I encouraged you to read the sourcing policy. You need to stop removing sourced content based on your personal opinions.


 * Second, accusing me of "changing things to how [I] like them - like [I] do with the American Naval vessels - wasp & America etc." is both ludicrous and appallingly hypocritical. You constantly change articles to impose your own sense of social justice and political correctness, in violation of WP guidelines and even after multiple warnings from multiple editors. I've even recently caught you making such edits again, while trying to hide them with false and deceptive edit summaries.


 * You need to stop disrupting the project with your WP:POV & WP:OR changes, your edit-warring, your personal attacks against others, your abuse of project functions and overall WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. - the WOLF  child  10:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear that you are an American and only see the world like an American that has never left his country can.


 * You need facts from the British Government and it's departments but you were unwilling or unable to understand that.


 * Pam-javelin (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow. You just came off another block for disruptive editing and your first post is an yet another violation of WP policy, and an demonstration of your intent to continue with your combative, WP:IDHT & WP:IDLI behaviour. Did you not learn anything from your blocks? First off, no... I am not American, I'm British. Second, I've been to every continent with the exception of Antarctica, including Cancun, where you claimed to have suddenly and conveniently gone during the same time you were blocked. Last, (and actually on topic), the article had "facts", that were supported by reliable sources. You kept removing and/or changing sourced content, in violation of Wikipedia policy, something you are "unwilling or unable to understand" (and the reason you were blocked. Twice. In a row.) Further, you kept insisting that content could "only be supported by an announcement from the British gov't", yet you apparently couldn't be bothered to even check for such announcements (or just didn't know how) and yet when I looked, it took me mere minutes to find and add sources that included the announcements you insisted were required but claimed didn't exist. So, stop this foolishness already. Stop your disruptive editing, edit-warring and uncivil, personal attacks. Learn and actually follow the policies & guidelines here, stop pushing personal agendas and use talk pages to discuss content collaboratively. Do all this and maybe... just maybe... you won't get blocked again, (and have to create yet another account). JMHO. Have a nice day - the WOLF  child  18:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

HMS Ocean
- you wrote; "Just so you know about this editing of yours: the source is a blog, famous for jumping the gun on a lot of infos and usage of fake news; no other media outlet has reported this so far and no other reliable source has back this up; there is no mention of that on the Brazilian Navy official website, twitter, facebook, or anything conected to the brazilian government or it's armed forces. In other words, nothing official came out, so far. Can it be true? Sure, who knows, might be, or not. So if a "who knows, might be" is enough for you or wikipedia, go ahead and keep it there.Coltsfan (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)"
 * First, let's keep discussions about article content on the article talk page. Next, as I had stated in my edit summary, there is no entry for this source at WP:RSN. A source, btw, that is currently being cited in at least 17 naval-relates articles. If you wish to challenge this source, I would suggest you do so at the appropriate noticeboard, not here and certainly not on my talk page. Thanks - the WOLF  child  17:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You? The guy who confronts everybody, usually falls flat, when then confronted with decent counterargument, all of the sudden is a "lets discuss first" kinda guy? Whatever. The info has added is not backed by no official channels, no coverage by mainstream media outlets (funny, since this is to be the largest warship in the Brazilian navy and in the southern hemisphere, you'd think it would get people's attention), nothing credible so far. But sure, lets let wikipedia play BALL.Coltsfan (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, when you're done with your little hissy fit, maybe you could point out where I wrote "let's discuss this first"...? You removed sourced content and I reverted you. Get over it. I simply pointed out that the source has never been challenged at RSN and is currently being used on 17 other articles (along with the fact that your rant didn't belong on my talk page). Not sure why I have to repeat all this, but... Anyway, what is there to "discuss"? Your problem is with the source so why don't you run along over to RSN and deal with the source, mm'kay? Have a nice day - the WOLF  child  18:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I was just confused. It's because WP:V says All material must be attributable to reliable, published sources i thought that all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Silly me. The source says, and i quote, "the joint staff of the Brazilian Navy announced", and then you go to the website of the Brazilian Navy and there is nothing... you go to the their social media pages, also nothing. You search for the information on the brazilian news outlets, and nothing. Maybe the british media... and nothing. So, apperently, the Brazilian Navy informed this Blog about the name of their newest flagship, and said nothing to everybody else? Minimum, the content should be removed due to the lacking of reliable and independent sources to back such a big news piece. When new sources show up, and they confirm or deny the information, great, but right now this name is a rumor and Wikipedia is treating it like a fact, a "fact" based on one source, not confirmed by any other (primary or secundary), not even the navy itself, and this is extremely ridiculous. Ps: Thewolfchild, i'd recommend the reading of WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOURCES. Might help. Coltsfan (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, again... the "Reliable Sources/Noticeboard" is that way → WP:RSN. Good luck with all that "confusion" and "silliness". Apology accepted. Good luck. - the WOLF  child  22:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think people understand irony anymore... And talking about 'not addressed issues', how about the lack of cover from other media outlets (brazilian, british, american, samoan, etc) or a position from the brazilian navy/government through any official or semiofficial channel? When we are facing a controversial topic and there is only ONE source available (a blog, at that), what to do: assume it's a fact or maybe be careful? Those are valid questions, would you admit it or not. Coltsfan (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't about what I "would admit or not". If that ref was only being used on this page, then sure... those would be questions worth addressing here. But It's a source that is in use many other articles as well and, has never been challenged. I get the point you're making, but the point you're missing is if you want to challenge a source in wide use, there is place for that, it the WP:RSN. How many times do you need to be told this? Go there and post all the questions and point out all the problems you like. If the source is found to be unreliable, then that won't just affect the content on this article, but likely several others as well. There's really nothing else to say about this here. - the WOLF  child  00:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * LMAO, AGAIN, you don't address the issue! AGAIN! You talk, talk talk (or write), but the issue isn't addressed. If the source is so good, if the information is undeniably TRUE as you argue, if it's indeed a fact, why isn't there more covarege from the media or the Navy itself? Can you give me ONE source, just one, that back this up? Just one? The only website i found is a blog called "Defesaaereanaval.com.br" but they quote the same website here as their own source, so it's all the same. So, i come to you and i say again: if the information is true, can you give us more sources? It's simple, right? Just go out there and get one more reference to this controversial topic. A source in english, preferably. I doubt that an information such as this would be difficult to find, right Thewolfchild? After all, it's the new name of the newest flagship of the largest navy in the southern hemisphere. And if you bother to answer the same reply you keep giving ad nauseam, don't bother. I'll just accept it as a "no, i can't find any RS to back this one beyond the one i [claim to] have". Again, just to make it clear, i'm not now questioning the source, i'm asking for more sources. We can question even the freaking BBC if they and only they have posted an information that is not backed by anybody else in the world but they. If the information is true, as you keep arguing, you'll have an easy time finding it and the WP:V will be satisfied. Coltsfan (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * TL;DR. RSN is right → here. Good luck. - the WOLF  child  20:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll interpret your silence to my question as "i can't answer you because i don't have a satisfatory answer". I guess to you one source to say that the Sun is made of strawberry would be enough right? I love exposing people. Coltsfan (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Exposed" what? Do you even know what you're ranting on about at this point? Or are you just going on and on (and on) for no particular reason other than a flaming case of must-have-last-word-itis...? If you have an issue with a source in wide use, Take. It. To. R. S. N. Have you done that? Nope. Have you even bothered to see the changes made to the content your railing on about, made by me then "The ed17"...? Apparently not. So take a deep breath, and think before you type your next reply, because your last half dozen or so posts here have been nothing but needless pagefill. Go go RSN. I think we're done here. Have a nice day. - the WOLF  child  21:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Still, after this cute little rant, not even a single question i asked was answered. Not even one. When the person come all upfront and all knowing but retreats after a single question asked, i call that 'exposed'. Sure, quit. I do that too when i'm out of excuses. Have a good one. I'm done here also. Coltsfan (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, so much for not posting yet another useless comment. How about you go punch a heavy bag for awhile to vent all that rage? Then, when you're calm and ready to contribute productively, head over to RSN and deal with this source that seems to be the proverbial 'fly in your fruit loops', mm'kay? Good. Luck. - the WOLF  child  21:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a beautiful 5 second "I think we're done here". I bet that you also didn't mean that "Have a nice day". hmmm Sad. hm Anyway... go to the first paragraph of this discussion. There are the questions that you refused time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time to answer. It's getting fun. Never saw anybody dodging questions like that in a while. Quite entertaining. But this game of me asking something and you pretending the question was never asked ceased being funny a awhile ago. But if your point was to give new meaning to argumentum ad nauseam, well done. Cheers! Coltsfan (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. (and what happened to "I'm done here also"...? See, I really thought we were done because, what else is there to say that is of any relevance? Of course, I didn't take into account your burning need to drag this on and on and on with with persistent and personalized rantings and ravings. The very first thing you complained about was the source. I told you the proper forum to address that is RSN. Not only have you still not gone there and done that, but it appears that you have never used that board. Is that the problem? You don't know how to use it? Are you afraid of looking foolish? (more so). There are plenty of people here willing to assist inexperienced users like yourself. I would've myself had you not been so rude and obnoxious. There someone will help you to craft and file a report for RSN. Then you can get this source dealt with and (hopefully) put an end to this compulsion you have to continue posting useless nonsense here. So again... good luck. - the WOLF  child  22:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Help Desk is that way → WP:HD.
 * Look, there he is again the "done talking". And still after all this discussion, still no answer! Whoa! Just say it: i don't want/don't know [how] to answer your questions. Simple. As for your WP:RSN stupid rhetoric, i will do it. Don't worry. I'll do that and i'll post it here the results, if they are relevant. Now, with that out of the way, would answer the other questions. The "RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN RSN" is not an option now. Now places to hide. Will you finally answer the other questions or will you will gonna do the "I think we're done here" routine again? I'm waiting. Coltsfan (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, well apparently you aren't worried about looking foolish. But anyway, what else is there to say except "asked and answered"? Oh, and good luck at RSN, don't forget to post the results here. You seem like a real dependable guy (I know I can depend on you to keep posting these stupid ill-comceived replies here) so I'm sure I can rely on you to post the RSN outcome as well. Have a good night. - the WOLF  child  01:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And still you refuse to answer any of my questions. I was right. You wasn't interested in address my concerns, because you don't have an answer. With all seriousness, my questions were pretty straightforward, easy to answer either way, but you didn't, probably afraid of how the "i don't know" would sound. I can now say with 100% surety that you don't give a damn about the quality of the content of the article. As long as things are done "your way", content in the article can be fake, verifiable, that's the least meaningful thing. So, if your point was to ad nauseam, congrats, i'm nauseated. I'm nauseated by this 2nd grade rhetoric and the refusal to answer simple questions. What are you afraid of? That i'd change the article based on your answers? I wouldn't. Unlike you, i like to actually consider what users have to say and not play WP:OWNERSHIP of the articles i work in. So, enjoy your victory here on Wikipedia. I know it means a lot to you. Ps: ah you can have the last word too. Bet it's gonna make u feel special, warm and fuzzy inside. Coltsfan (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"...you don't give a damn about the quality of the content of the article." "...i'm nauseated. I'm nauseated..." "...make u feel special, warm and fuzzy inside."
 * Er, no... I just don't "give a damn" about you and this nonsense you've been going on and on about. (well, at least the little bits that I actually read sure seemed like nonsense).
 * Gee, it's so bad you had to write it twice? Look, if editing Wikipedia is making you physically ill, then perhaps you should take a break for awhile? Maybe find something more suitable to your delicate intestinal state.
 * Nope. Sorry to break it to you, but I really only feel indifference. Like I said, I don't care about you and your 'issues'. You had a problem with a source and I directed you to the appropriate place to deal with it. That should've been the end of it. However, I see that, as of posting this, you still haven't filed a report there. So how about you take a couple of Gravols and go do that? Or don't. Like I said... I'm beyond caring now. So, anything else? No? OK then... hope you're feeling better soon! - the WOLF  child  15:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Names and titles - PHeM x PHM
Why are they insisting on PHeM? It is PHM and there is an official confirmation. And why is the article's name still HMS Ocean when the ship already belongs to the Brazilian Navy as PHM Atlântico? Here I have the article from the Brazilian Navy site confirming it is PHM Atlântico and not PHeM. I know it will not change anything but here are the facts. And now, a video from the official page of the Brazilian Navy. If you want more, here there is an official document of the Brazilian Navy confirming it is PHM not PHeM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D41:2412:8F00:49F:A2CE:6F54:66F4 (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - An early source, and a very reliable one, reported the then-just announced name as "Atlântico" with the prefix "PMeH". A few sources after that did as well, hence the reason it was noted as such in the article (with supporting ref attached). However, there are now a significant number of sources reporting the prefix as "PHM" and that is how it is now noted in the article. - the WOLF  child  13:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Title of the article
Should the title of the article be "HMS Ocean (L12) " or "PHM Atlântico (A140)" as that is now the ships name?

Juanpumpchump (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It should remain as is. The entire life of this ship has been as HMS Ocean. Her life as Atlântico has yet to really even begin. Perhaps once she has some established history, enough for her own article, someone can create a new article under that name. But for now, she is basically just a footnote here. (IMHO) If you ask at WT:SHIPS, perhaps some of the editors there might know how something like this is typically dealt with, if there is guideline that speaks to this kind of situation. - the WOLF  child  14:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Image
- I reverted your edit back to the previous version as it did not serve to improve the article. The images, while similar appearances, do have a one difference of note; the hull number is more clearly visible in the previous version than in your version. While there was no change in the text, you didn't give a reason for moving it from the right to the left, where it displaces the lead sentence of that section. As such, I take it you will find the given reasoning sufficient and let the matter rest. - wolf  03:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)