Talk:YMS-1-class minesweeper

shipbuildinghistory is inadequate
explanation follows in a timely manner 158.181.81.240 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll wait for your explanation. - w o lf  19:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * well, presumably you know that something entered on this page is false, so why don't you start with the source that disputes that information. 158.181.81.240 (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim anything was false. I did however remove content that you had supported with the shipbuildinghistory.com ref. Aren't you going to now show how that site meets the requirements of a reliable source? Wasn't that the purpose of your multiple reverts? - w o lf  21:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * i am editing ww2 era articles. the guy publishes his email and accepts corrections. the site is used all over wikipedia. i think you are trying to recruit me as a pet to do useless tasks for you and i will revert it and let arbitration decide. 158.181.81.240 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"i am editing ww2 era articles." - Yes, and you're disrupting them as well. You need to revert less and engage more. "the guy publishes his email and accepts corrections." - Have you even read the policy on verifiability, specifically the section on self-published sources? "the site is used all over wikipedia." - that is a grandiose claim for a wiki with over 6.5 million articles. That the site "shipbuildinghistory.com" has been added to a few obsure articles on shipbuiding is hardly surprising. It also does not automatically make that site reliable, as required by policy. "i think you are trying to recruit me as a pet to do useless tasks for you..." - a personal attack that is typical of you and beneath me. "...and i will revert it and let arbitration decide." - have you even read the policy on edit warring? Also, this is a content dispute, they are not decided on by the Arbitration Committee. In a content dispute, you are expected to engage on the talk page and try to seek a consensus, and to leave the article at WP:QUO, without making any further reverts. If consensus cannot be attained, then your next step is to go follow the Dispute Resolution policy. I strongly encourage you to do just that, and in the meantime, you should self-revert your last edit, and refrain from any further personal attacks and insults. - w o lf  22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * i will try. my problem is that people on wikipedia are very unhelpful and the first line of defense is made of folks who seem to not understand much about the subject matter they are patrolling or have access to useful resources related to the subject matter. it's frustrating. you haven't made a single useful contribution to the problem and we have talked for days now. 158.181.82.96 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that Wikipedia can be daunting, we were all new to this project at one point, and just like you, needed to understand that there are many policies & guidelines that govern this project, along with an expectation of collegial cooperation. Now, short of me actually finding sources to support your content, then researching and writing your edits for you... I have been helping you. I've made efforts to welcome you on the many user talk pages you are accumulating with your growing list of IP accounts, I tried to encourage you to create a registered account with a detailed personal message. I've tried to notify you of as many policies and guidelines as possible, to help you with your edits. These are the rules you need to read, learn and follow, if you want to edit this project. And even when your responses have been less than collegeal, and even insulting, I have kept my reponses above board. (A flame war would get us no where.) In short, there are problems with your edits, I have tried to let you know what those problems are, and the rules that apply... it's on you to take the steps to learn them and improve. Edit-warring, snippy responses and trying to avoid the problem is not the way to go here. (imho) - w o lf  13:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

list of manufacturers place to start
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YMS-1-class_minesweeper&oldid=1098650763

if someone wants to finish this 158.181.82.96 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * http://shipbuildinghistory.com/ appears to be one person's personal site and not a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE - in addition most of the entries that you made were completely unsourced. Good sourcing is fundamental to adding to articles on Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * that person is inviting corrections.
 * he lists several names of people who have contributed: http://shipbuildinghistory.com/sources.htm
 * as well as the primary sources he used.
 * unless such a person has really fat fingers and nobody notices the mistakes, or maybe its all a scam and he is laughing at us, unless that is the case, why exactly is that not a source that is good enough to use to take the time and enter lists of boatbuilders that can then later at much greater convenience be corrected by a different person with better sources.
 * if you want i can go through your edit history and axe all navsource.org references. do you use that site? 158.181.82.96 (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "...why exactly is that not a source that is good enough to use to take the time and enter lists of boatbuilders that can then later at much greater convenience be corrected by a different person with better sources." - Again, that's not how it works. You don't deliberately add substandard content with the expectation that someone else will fix it for you. You need to properly source the content you add, when you add it, or don't add it at all.
 * "if you want i can go through your edit history and axe all navsource.org references. do you use that site?" - that would be harassment and good way to find yourself getting blocked from editing. You need to stop with this hostile, belligerant attitude and constant attempts to turn discussion threads into battlegrounds. Keep to the subject at hand, not other articles, and focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. - w o lf  13:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * you are trying to be helpful again? don't.
 * everybody enters information into wikipedia with the expectation that it will be verified.
 * telling a person that he is making hypocritical arguments is not harassment.
 * if you want to read rules to people full time, while lacking a sense of subtlety in applying the rules, don't be surprised if you get insulted. you are engaging in a widespread low key cultural sickness. 158.181.82.96 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "you are trying to be helpful again? don't." - have you even tried to be mature and cooperative yet? Do.
 * "everybody enters information into wikipedia with the expectation that it will be verified." - uh... what? No, only you do that.
 * "telling a person that he is making hypocritical arguments is not harassment." - no, that is just as bad, if not worse.
 * "if you want to read rules to people full time, while lacking a sense of subtlety in applying the rules, don't be surprised if you get insulted. you are engaging in a widespread low key cultural sickness." - Wow. Actually, you know what? Nevermind what I said... you just keep doing what you're doing! (iow, not WP:ROPES, just WP:ROPE...) Have a nice day - w o lf  14:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * that's right. find other people in need of help. the most useful thing you did today. 158.181.82.96 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, maybe I'll help out at this article, there seems to be an uncooperative ip edit-warrior who keeps adding unsourced content and expecting others to fix their edits for them... - w o lf  15:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * i am already planning my wikipedia retirement 158.181.82.96 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If you feel you still have some worthwhile contributions to make, then instead of retiring, why not just try to learn and follow the rules? (And be a little more cooperative?) But if you really are done, well then good luck to you in your future endeavours. - w o lf  19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * several wikipedians are soon going to realize that they are doing the same thing shipbuildinghistory.com is doing when they sit in their mom's basement with a friedman and a conway and a navsource.org browser window open. except that they haven't been inviting corrections on a public email account for years, nor are they working in the shipbuilding industry.
 * it's not easy for people to realize the work they do is pointless.
 * in the case of wikipedia, doing this pointless work for an hour or two entitles the person (in their own mind) to piss on another person for using an "unreliable source". 158.181.80.120 (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't edit while you are blocked. If you can't stop breaking the rules and attcking people in the process, then perhaps you should retire and move on. - w o lf  15:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)