Talk:USS Carl Vinson

Carl Vinson
by my count, you've attempted to add that Vinson was a segregationist, at least four times in the past year alone. Despite those edits being removed each time, not once have you gone to the talk page to discuss the matter, as set out in WP:BRD;
 * B: you Boldly make an edit,
 * R: the edit is Reverted,
 * D: you then Discuss the issue on the talk page.

Along with that, the WP:ONUS is on you, as the one seeking to add content, to gain consensus for it, if the content has been opposed, as is the case here. Ship articles should be about ships, and this edit you repeatedly keep trying to add, and so prominently to the lead at that, is WP:UNDUE and does not maintain an WP:NPOV for the article subject, which is the ship, not the Congressman. (imo) -  wolf  16:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with whitewashing the article. But there was never a valid reason for reverting the edit and you're not giving one now. It's important background for the namesake of a ship that all Americans pay for. Nothing more, nothing less. I'll revert your edit now. And FYI there was nothing on the talk page when you said "see tp" before the last edit. SteelMarinerTalk 18:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with whitewashing the article." - One might ask you why you are so "obsessed" with adding this edit, but I won't because it would be considered a personal attack, like your comment is. How about you just focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS, mm-kay?
 * "But there was never a valid reason for reverting the edit and you're not giving one now." - that's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming LA-LA-LA-LA!! while others are speaking and then claiming they "didn't give a valid reason". I gave my reasons as an opening to a discussion. The way discussions work on WP is you continue the discussion, not revert, yet again, while posting insults.
 * "It's important background for the namesake of a ship..." - you could propose adding it to the namesake section of the article, but that would mean an actual effort at discussion on your part.
 * "...that all Americans pay for." - instead of standing on a WP:SOAPBOX trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
 * "Nothing more, nothing less." - actually, you'll need more.
 * "I'll revert your edit now." - that's not how it works. Whether it's because you don't edit disputed content during a discussion, or that during content disputes articles go back to WP:QUO, or (once again) the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus to include your edit, or simply that because edit-warriors don't usually benefit from their disruption, your edit needs to come out until this discussion concludes and either you and I agree (a consensus), or you go to dispute resolution and try your luck there.
 * "And FYI there was nothing on the talk page when you said "see tp" before the last edit." - ok... and?


 * Anyways, read the policy & guidelines I've cited, as they do apply here. And read the reasons I gave for my edit (same as I gave you a month ago) and then consider replying. We can have an actual discussion and perhaps work out a compromise. In the meantime, I suggest you self-revert. -  wolf  19:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is a contentious issue, and as such needs to be discussed beforehand. I'm not a fan of selective revelation either. We don't note on the USS JFK articles that he was a philanderer, etc. Are only certain bad deeds worthy of "exposure" in tangentially related articles? BilCat (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. With literally thousands of ships, if we were to start noting negative characteristics about the namesakes, where would it end? Medal of Honor recipient Joe Schmoe of USS Schmoe was also a wife-beater, Nobel laureate Suzy Que of USNS Que used cocaine, and on and on. Better to have ship articles focus on the ship. -  wolf  21:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, really? Threatening to have me "blocked" on my talk page because you can't handle someone noting the fact that this ship is named after a white supremacist who believed black people shouldn't have equal rights? Power trip much? Anyway, I'll be adding a section in the morning noting the controversy behind this ship's namesake. Hopefully your emotional state can withstand it. Toodles. SteelMarinerTalk 04:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a standard notice. I didn't write it, but I am required to post it, to ensure you are aware of the policy, especially in light of your behaviour. Again, the purpose of talk pages is to have collegial discussion to try and work out any differences over content. You however seem incapable of that, considering in your latest comments you have again posted another personal attack, along with a threat to bypass any attempt at consensus and/or dispute resolution and instead re-add that content... again (talk about a "power trip").

Regardless if you add it to the lead again or the namesake section, there is an active discussion here and you have not gained consensus. There is a process to follow, including (again) WP:ONUS, which states: "" That applies here, and to you. You don't just get to add whatever you want, whenever you want. To try and do so will be considered more disruption on your part, and treated as such. "Toodles". -  wolf  05:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems you have a personal grudge instead of a concern for the quality of this article. My condolences, but that shouldn't be allowed to dictate wikipedia's content. I am confident my most recent addition absolutely conforms to the site's standards and has many citations, and you are welcome to file a complaint about me doing so. But I'll continue to put it in the article. SteelMariner<i style="color:goldenrod">Talk</i> 05:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
"Since some time has lapsed without any further reason why this shouldn't be added, I think it's safe to add this section with appropriate citations." - that's not how it works. Just 'waiting them out and then sliding the edit back in' two months later does not negate the previous discussion, any related policies or guidelines, or the need to discuss the issue in a collegial manner, to try and work towards a consensus. - w o lf  07:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)