User talk:158.181.81.168

August 2022
Hello, I'm BrigadierG. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BrigadierG (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * you didn't remove anything i entered. what you did remove was a lot of text that has been on the page for over a year it seems. a lot of time to survive under what presumably were critical eyes at least twice a month. maybe not the smartest way to go about it. 158.181.81.168 (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOR, claims without sources can be removed by anyone and cannot be contested. I can understand some degree of original research or poor citing on an article like this, but it's explicit policy that Wikipedia is WP:NOTESSAY. Keeping unverifiable claims about history is unencyclopedic. BrigadierG (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * well you know how that goes...
 * option a) add sources
 * option b) throw it in the trash
 * you seem to believe that I or people in general do not know how wikipedia works. that's already a minus on the ability to judge front.
 * i will add some sources now or soon. there are a few maritime journals from that era and they had little else to talk about at that time.
 * i have also read a little bit into the 50,000 metric tons of government authored literature on the topic. if there is a claim that is important, i might lend a hand and see what i can find out about it. 158.181.81.168 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead and source whatever claims you can, but don't be upset when I remove original research in line with Wikipedia policy. If you do in fact know how Wikipedia works, then you completely understand that I'm acting in line with Wikipedia's original research policy, so there's no need for WP:ASPERSIONS. BrigadierG (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * i always get upset when someone does something i don't like, especially if it involves a wikipedia policy i do not like. 158.181.81.168 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * for example, after reading through the text which you just yanked here, i find many statements that would be verifiable, others which i am certain of are true, even though one would have to go through a lot of text to find a citation that matches. and you did this (i assume) without even a specific dispute. you just disappeared it all, and your rationale seems to involve a metaphorical form of high explosive. ouch. WP:ISNOTAKINDERGARTEN 158.181.81.168 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. There's good news though - everything I deleted is saved in the page's history. If you're motivated enough to verify the information in question in accordance with reliable sources so that it's no longer original research, you're totally free to add it back into the article. BrigadierG (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * for that you first have to
 * a) find something on wikipedia i care about
 * b) jump over the low bar wikipedia offers you there
 * as long as you are "improving" other people's work, i am just a bit disappointed in your general direction.. 158.181.81.168 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I spend plenty of effort improving articles.
 * https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/BrigadierG/0/Metaverse
 * BrigadierG (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * but you do not know much about WW2 shipbuilding? 158.181.81.168 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved the original research and synth to the article's talk page so that it is preserved as a compromise. If you wish to find WP:RS that supports the information there, feel free to add it back to the article, but please do not further revert the removal of WP:OR that is WP:LIKELY, as doing so goes against Wikipedia policy. BrigadierG (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * well ok. i checked. it's been there over 10 years, happily going against wikipedia policy before you came along. which almost guarantees that it has been verified by wikipedia (readers). but, the rules are the rules.
 * in the future, you may want to use your head a bit more, even though you are not required to do so.
 * for example it may be prudent to do what you did, but only if you are familiar with the subject matter. certainly you don't just as easily do the same to wikipedia content on off brand pages when you know them too be true. 158.181.81.168 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This will be my last message here, but "it's been there over 10 years" is WP:WEAKSILENCE. BrigadierG (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)