User talk:219.76.18.208

Anonymous policing of antenna tuner deserves no respect.
I have reversed your reversion of my reversion. I think this officially puts us in an "edit war". Please note that I see no need to respect your (poor) judgement about the quality of my edits, since (like me) you are not putting your name to it.

The change that I undid, and now have replaced with a pedantic and excessive footnote, is because the editor who changed the introduction text very clearly had not done his homework: The issue of where an antenna tuner should be put, and the consequences for placing it far from the antenna, are discussed extensively in about the third quarter of the article, under several headings relating to "efficiency".

Neither you, nor the person who made the unhelpful insert, has read the article. It's a long article (it needs to be broken up, but I haven't the energy, nor a clear vision of how it should be done). If you want me to consider your judgement about what "does not appear helpful" to you, you're going to have to work harder.

I am one of the two original writers of the article, and have been polishing it continuously for the past five years or so, so I know most of what the article does and does not contain; that and and being a licensed radio operator, I respect my own opinion about the topic of impedance matching of antennas far more than most others. Since you seem to have occupied yourself recently with movie / popular entertainment articles, I don't see how you count as my peer for this particular article.

On the other hand, if you would like to take on the labor of splitting up the antenna tuner article into multiple, coherent but less exhausting parts, please go for it. I'll help. I'd recommend starting by spawning off multiple nearly-duplicate sub-articles each covering just two or three sections of the current article. Go for it.


 * Sorry, but what an absolute load of horse shit! You unnecessarily removed content that another editor had inserted and are now trying to justify your BS, even admitting that you're engaging in an edit war. I am going to revert your changes once again, and if I catch you vandalizing in the same manner (or further prolonging the edit war) I will report you to the administrators. FINAL WARNING. 219.76.18.208 (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Likewise, but this is not two-way B.S.; all of it is coming from you. The other editor made a bad change: Inserted a sentence at the very beginning that obfuscates the starting description with details that are discussed fully, later in the article. You are yourself B.S.ing me by presuming that your judgement about what is a good and what is a bad change is better than mine. And you're engaging in Wikipedia policing action anonymously. And don't push off your own importance by making dire warnings. That's more of your own B.S. And note that you're doing the edit-war business even more than I am: You aren't even an interested party.


 * Sit down and steam off; you might also consider the likelihood that your snap judgement is not very good. After all, you're reacting to anonymous edits by anonymous editing. Believe me, I understand very  well the desire to keep ticked-off anonymous editors out of your personal I.D.; but anonymous undos don't deserve any kind of respect or regard, than an in-your-name edit does.


 * And again: Neither you, nor the un-involved prior (also anonymous) editor has any clue of what's in the article. What kind of B.S. do you think that looks like?
 * 166.199.8.11 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.