User talk:71.112.237.135

October 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Battle of Brisbane. 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.
 * Hello. Thank you for your friendly greeting, but, I am hardly new to Wikipedia (I realize you have no way to see that from your perspective, however.).  How have you not noticed that the editor you seem to be protecting here is also engaging in an edit war against my claims, claims which are supported by WP editing guidelines?  Have you issued the same warning to that editor? 71.112.237.135 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
 * My goodness. Did you bother to read the Talk page for this article?  If you had, you would have seen that some of the same points were brought up earlier and repeatedly by others, to no avail whatsoever.  Challengers, with proof of documentation, have successfully countered many of the spurious and undocumented claims written in the original article.  However, the end result has been that the solid points brought up in those challenges have often been left ignored, unanswered and/or unable to be countered with documented fact, with the article remaining mainly unchanged by the original author and supporting editors.  If you haven't noticed by now, this example is a major (and I feel, fatal) flaw of Wikipedia, in that original authors are easily able to maintain provincial views and lies within their articles, mainly and simply because they happen to be the original authors.  If challengers, after finding previous engagements by others in the Talk pages to have been fruitless, attempt to counter through editing, they are soon accused of starting a so-called "edit war".  This is an unwinnable situation and is unfair to the core.  This ham-fisted containment of challengers by WP has contributed to Wikipedia's reputation, in far too many instances, as a poorly documented repository of narrow-minded and short-sighted opinion, rather than a resource of roundly supported facts. 71.112.237.135 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:TAGBOMBING an article (Battle of Brisbane) really isn't good form nor is adding in-article comments. You have added multiple comments/tags to the section Opinions of each other's soldiers. I could add citations at almost every point requested - including US official military histories for some. Would that be your preference? Of the reference by Evans and Donigan, I responded with the edit summary: citation to WP:RS - online journal with editorial board of academics. You therefore appear to be misconstruing WP policy when you revert again, with the same edit summary: Citation is from an article found on a self-published, undocumented blog, lacking in citations from reliable sources itself, therefore, content is unreliable and does not meet WP standards for valid citation (see "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" and "Wikipedia: Verifiability". I would note that the source in question appears to be an extract of a chapter in this book written by the same authors. The cited source appears to meet WP:RS. Per Template:POV statement, you are required to initiate discussion on the TP when you use this template. You have not. The tag comment, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Brisbane&diff=next&oldid=921885775 Only valid ref. here is US Army MP op. dockets. Got'em? Didn't think so], appears combative and misconstrues WP policy - citing a secondary source is sufficient. Please clean up your malformed tagging. If one plays nice with others, then one is more likely to get what they want. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)