Talk:USS Laboon

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 09:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Citations in ledes
It is standard at the Project that citations are not required in ledes, when they appear in the text below. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:B473:66A7:77CD:34F0 (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Posts such as this belong on the article talk page, not a user talk page. 2. If you have an issue with one part of an edit, then just address that part instead of undoing the entire edit. - w o lf  07:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with your repeated editing in this regard. Thus - it is of course proper to put it on your talk page. It also alerts editors who may run into the same problem with your editing that you have been addressed on this point. Fix your error - I'll let you do it. You made it. Don't repeat your error. That is what is less than constructive. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:B473:66A7:77CD:34F0 (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow... ok. I disagree with your edits to this article as well, that's what article talk pages are for (and why I am again moving your post from my talk page to here).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Laboon&diff=prev&oldid=1192422387


 * It seems your issue is that you want that bit about the ship shooting down the missiles added to the lead. I removed it because as per WP:LEAD, "" As it stands, the lead of that article only has an short blurb about the ship's name. Adding that bit about the Houthi missiles puts too much weight on that one event, while failing to include anything else in the summary. The lead could have that bit included, but it should really be part of larger addition with more info, for balance.


 * That said, if you really felt the missile bit should be there as is, you could've just re-added that without undoing all the other fixes and changes I made. (Unless you're somehow contesting all of those as well.) That was unnecessary, if not disruptive. Meanwhile, these issues could've simply been discussed, and likely resolved, here on the talk page. Failing that, there is a dispute resolution process to follow, that usually sorts things out.


 * As for your contention that this is a "behavioural issue", well... couldn't I just make the same claim about your form? Just because one disagrees with ones actions, doesn't necessarily mean it's problem of behaviour. More often than not it's just a content dispute, usually based on opposing points-of-view or a lack or knowledge, or both.


 * You are, of course, free to file a complaint with an admin or the community, but that is not typically the first step in a content dispute, and making such threats is usually not helpful and can have a chilling affect on collaboration. As for the talk page of the IP account you're currently using, I only added one template, that's hardly abusive, and they can be added to any user talk page by any registered user, using Twinkle, with no special "tools given out by admins" involved. (Get yourself an account and you can use Twinkle too.) Those notices are not punitive, they're informative. Just like the big "Welcome to Wikipedia!" template I also added. You struck me as inexperienced and I thought you would find all the information in those templates useful.


 * Anyway, getting back to the article, if you would like to dicuss a way forward to improve the lead of this page, let me know. - w o lf  04:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a behavioral problem because it is not an editing problem as to what word or words are appropriate, but because if you make an error, you should not upon learning it is an error reintroduce it. I did not make an error, and then reintroduce the error - only you did.
 * As to whether the "missile bit" is appropriate for the lede, your test as to what belongs in a lede glosses over without mentioning what is stated in the very first sentence of wp:lede. That the lede is a summary of the article's "most important contents." The "missile bit" - its major active combat - is just that. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6452:6250:50CE:E0D7 (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A dispute about article material, as in; where it should it be on the page, how it should it be written, and whether it even belongs or not... is a content dispute. I'm not trying to couch it that way to downplay it in an attempt to avoid admin scrutiny. If you want to complain to an admin, charactizing my edits as a "behavioural problem", (while at the same time claiming your edits are without fault), then go right ahead, fill your boots. But keep in mind a few things; while you continue to harp on with your behavour accusations, I have tried to bring relevant policies and guidelines to your attention, and while I have tried to initiate a dicussion on the disputed content, all you've done is continue making the same accusations and continue with the disruptive edits (now reverted by a different editor). You should also know that in a complaint, the actions of both the accusee and accuser are scrutinized by the admin, so beware of boomerangs.


 * An important, site-wide, practice commonly followed here is WP:BRD: the "B" is for the entry you "B"oldly added to the lead(s), "R" is for the "R"evison of those entries I made to remove them, and "D" is for "Discussion". As in you and I having a dialog on the article talk page in an effort to resolve the dispute (cooperatively & collegially). There is no such initalism as: GTMUTPAAMOHBP (go to my user talk page and accuse me of having behaviour problems). I encourage you stop personalizing this with these angry accusations and make a sincere effort to discuss this content issue here and seek a resolution. I think that is the best path forward. TL;DR: focus on edits, not editors. - w o lf  06:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-explanatory edit summary
An editor left a non-explanatory edit summary here. I invite the editor to address that here. If not, their edit will be reverted. The reason for the content that they deleted was clearly set forth in the prior edit summary. This is bordering on the tenditious. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:996D:F989:D942:3FFD (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are free, to a point, to try and continue with this matter how you see fit, despite other editors (other than me) disagreeing with you, despite all the policies & guidelines that have been cited for you, and despite attempts to engage in discussion with you. You can try to cherry-pick the rules, ignoring what doesn't suit you and you can try to edit-war and be generally disruptive. Or, you can look to the lead of USS Carney as way to add a balanced summary of the ship's history, and use that as a guide, (while also taking part in dialog here as well, if you see fit.) It is all up to you... until it isn't. (pinging ) - w o lf  08:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with removing that item from the lead. I don't think it's necessary to put in each time a ship fires a weapon into the lead paragraph. USS Mason (DDG-87) is another example of another IP anon adding the same material to the lead. This seems to be an example of recentism bias. I don't think that each combat action is needed in the lead, ie missile firings. Every time a tomahawk was fired has not been typically included in the lead. I'd be fine with removing it from the lead in the Carney article as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)