User talk:104.15.130.191

July 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Hyman G. Rickover. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2017
Hi, I saw that you had a difference of opinion with another editor at Reality Winner. If you take a look at articles on Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, you'll see that, even though their notability originates from leaking classified documents, we describe them first and foremost by their profession, and subsequently explain what their current status is within the legal system, for instance. I hope you can accept this as an explanation of what we're looking for in an edit. I will not take any action against you at this point, but please check out WP:3RR and abide by it, otherwise another admin may well give you harsher treatment than I have. Happy editing! Samsara 13:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Reality Winner is not in her former profession, nor will she be returning to it. To describe her -- or the others you mention -- with the spin of their "profession" is not intellectually honest, which I hope you can see. I will abide by Wikipedia, even when I disagree with some admin's interpretation of what constitutes an "authentic" encyclopedia.

Cheers, --104.15.130.191 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Lake Travis
"Recreational users of this flood-control lake are strongly warned to review" is not the type of filler that belongs on Wikipedia. LAroboGuy (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Hello, thanks for your efforts on the Lake Travis page. I personally don't think your additions are what belongs on this page, because a lot of it is just general boat safety warnings and such, and that's not what wikipedia is for - it's for providing information about the actual subject, in this case Lake Travis. If you want to post safety information somewhere, you should start your own Lake Travis page and put it there. LAroboGuy (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Mind the Three revert rule on Benoit Mandelbrot
Howdy and thanks for all the work. Do make sure to follow the Three Revert Rule on Benoit Mandelbrot. It looks like the you have started a discussion on the talk page; it is best to discuss changes there rather than reverting back and forth. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions or concerns! Thanks again! --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Hello, I'm Funplussmart. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Charles Howard Hinton have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. funplussmart (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (104.15.130.191) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! funplussmart (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

March 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Devs (miniseries) are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2020
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Hyman G. Rickover ‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please do not comment on others' ability to think. Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ANI
See discussion on ANi: Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. Toddst1 (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, you may be blocked from editing. Megan Barris  (Lets talk📧)  13:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2020
Your addition to Los Angeles-class submarine has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * It would have taken you less than 5 seconds to search for the keyword "copyright" on the fas.org page -- and seen that they make no copyright claims. "Reload."  --104.15.130.191 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Hi there, the source you added to USS Baton Rouge seems to say the Kostroma is still in service, but you added text to the article saying that it is no longer in service. I was confused by the contradiction, so I reverted the edit. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Rickover
Looks like Toddst1 already deleted all that stuff. Then you added it back. But I don't see where you asked his permission to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.99.99 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This IP doesn't need my permission, but s/he does need consensus, which is not there on the talk page. This slow-motion edit war will get this  blocked if it continues.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are threatening me...for adding bonafide, cited, highly relevant, encyclopedic content, which you have deleted en-masse, and with one other person supporting you? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody supports your addition. Accept consensus or be blocked. Yes, that is a threat. Toddst1 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Educate me, Sir Theatener. What -- and how -- do you define a consensus when it is only made up of two people? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on USS Dallas (SSN-700); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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: 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. -  wolf  23:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You're the one that's out of line, and you know it. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Question
I see this isn't the first time this issue has come up with you, so I must ask; what is your aversion to talk pages? That is where your concerns belong, not in edit summaries. Again, please see WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS, a guideline created via consensus among a group of editors at the Project: Ships talk page. It clearly spells out why non-notable crew members are not included in ship articles. If you disagree, feel free to start another discussion on the matter and see if you can sway consensus to suit your preference. In the meantime, stop edit-warring and disrupting articles to push your personal opinion.

Additionally, take a look a WP:BRD. The gist of it is;
 * B - you Boldly make an edit.
 * R - you get Reverted.
 * D - you then Discuss the matter on article talk page to seek a resolution.

No where in there, or in any policy, does it say you are allowed to repeatedly hit revert, cramming in your preferred edit, in hopes that the other editor will suddenly say "gee your right!", or just get fed up and walk away. You think that there is some special exemption for you? There isn't. - wolf  00:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I see you have quite a block history...quite understandable. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oy. If you think this kind of behavior impresses, I can assure it doesn't. Instead of hunting through people's block logs (looking for "ammo", because you clearly think this is some kind of battle), how about reading any of the links related to this edit dispute that I've provided to you, multiple times? Or just start with the basics, such as the links to guidance for contained in the 'welcome' template I provided for you at the top of this talk page? (Perhaps even get an account? It would help stem the socking allegations that others have made against you.) You are using needless hostility and aiming it in the wrong direction. First off, there is no need for it. And second you're problem isn't really with me, I just happen to be the editor that made changes in line with community consensus. While they are changes you don't like, it's not something "I decided" nor did arbitrarily. If you have an issue with that, then take the proper steps to address it. You need to work with the community towards a new consensus to override the previous one. And I can tell you right now, edit-warring, going through people's block logs, making snide, juvenile remarks, trying to prompt an admin into blocking editors, just because you don't like their edits, and refusing to acknowledge a consensus already established by that same community... will get no where. - wolf  05:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I really don't have time for gaslighting. Best of luck.  Out.  --104.15.130.191 (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

April 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hyman G. Rickover. 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: 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. Grandpallama (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

The only edit war is on your side. Please STOP...and READ...before editing. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Hyman G. Rickover shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grandpallama (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Pot...kettle? --104.15.130.191 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, just the kettle. Toddst1 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2021 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Grandpallama (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)