User talk:86.187.172.17

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

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (86.187.172.17) 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! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  01:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Naeraberg - edit warring
Hello. Regarding your removal of very large sections of referenced content from the article entitled Naeraberg, I can see there may well be some confusion over which content is applicable to which vessel. You could well be right. However, no-one is entitled to blank content in the way that you have without first raising the matter on the article's talk page. For this reason I am about to revert your blanking of that content again. Because your actions are based (at this moment in time) on your opinions (and right now it doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong in that) I am regarding your actions as tantamount to vandalism (as defined by Wikipedia, not society at large). So, if you remove that content again you are very likely to get blocked from editing, irrespective of whether you are right or wrong. I am beginning to think you're right to be concerned - it's just that you've gone about dealing with it in totally the wrong way. I am going to ping, one of our admins who has made a large number of contributions to this particular page. Being an admin he has the ability to block both you and me for what we call "edit warring", but I am going to ask him to discuss with you the merits of your concerns. Please be prepared to support those concerns with links to vessel name pages or other sources.

I admit that to my totally untrained eye this link to Naeraberg (aka Dirk Diederik) and this to Dirk Dirk (aka Naeraberg) do relate to different sized and aged vessels. So you are probably right in your concerns about whether there has been an innocent mix up in stories. But, I repeat, deleting stuff in this way is not acceptable. Please don't blank the page again when I shortly restore it - it will do no-one any harm to have all this information displayed so that editors (including you) can discuss and help sort out any misunderstanding on the talk page. I will now revert your content deletion and leave a message on the article talk page. I have, out of good faith, removed the formal warning notice I left on your page. Please see this rule on edit warring to which, I'm afraid you are sailing very close to the wind in contravening and getting blocked if you delete content another time. Thanks for your concerns, once again. I'm sure your right about there being a mix-up, but please, let's sort this out in a reasonable way with all the fact put before everyone, rather than facing a blank page which nobody can fathom out. Hoping this makes sense, Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Just to let you know that I have now also tagged the page with a notice saying that the content is disputed, which I think should help. It's now 3am here, so my head is unable to fully grasp the complexities of any vessel mixup. I apologise for initially coming down hard on you, but I think sorting it all out on the talk page is the best way forward for those involved editors. My role here was simply to drop by and try to prevent vandalism (- and we see a lot of content getting removed, which helps no-one). As I said, I am beginning to suspect that you might be right to raise concerns - and I thank you for that. How two vessels could be confused in this way is beyond me, but I think there are better ways to resolve matters than removing almost everything from the article, bar a single sentence. I'm sure you would agree? To that end, and in good faith, I have also deleted my initial notice about section blanking which we tend to dish out when a well-intentioned user sees what they think constitutes vandalism, even if it turns out not to be so in the end, and I hope that's the case. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Naeraberg - why are you now trying to have it AFD-ed?
''Update: After posting this note I subsequently realised the WP:AFD request referred to below did not come from this IP address (my bad), but from User:86.187.172.208. From the style of editing history to this article, however, I conclude this to be one and the same person, using a dynamic IP address.''

Hello again. I'm afraid I am at a complete loss to understand what you're trying to achieve by your actions at the Naeraberg page. Could you help me by explaining, as I must be missing something? You seem to have unilaterally taken an article about a notable ship, removed all notable content on the grounds that information on two similarly named vessels had been conflated, then added uncited content of your own, and have now proposed the page for deletion on the grounds of its non-notability.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the situation:
 * You encountered this version of the page. It was a well-referenced article about a ship that would have clearly met our general notability guidelines, containing links to many news stories about its controversial fishing activities.
 * You concluded the article was about a completely different vessel, or two different vessels both now named Naeraberg, so you deleted all the content and references about the notable vessel, leaving just a single sentence for the other one. (See here).
 * I reverted your actions as still being vandalism, and you re-reverted my edit, again removing virtually all the content.
 * Thinking you were still just being a vandal, I reverted your action. Having warned you a couple of times against this, I began to consider you might actually be making a valid point via your edit summaries, albeit in a ham-fisted way- and tried to engage with you and encourage you to stop unilaterally deleting content, but to use the article's Talk page to  explain your concerns, and to cite evidence. Having done that, and pinging two involved editors, I  explained that I would reinstate the content you disputed so that everyone could all engage constructively over the matter. I added a 'disputed' template to the page, and removed the vandalism warnings from your talk page -both done in good faith. (See this)
 * You ignored my approach to reach consensus first, and once again deleted the content and references again, still asserting that the article was about a different vessel.
 * You added unsourced statements about that vessel of your own. (See this)
 * Ten hours later you tried (see updated note above) to get the page deleted at WP:AFD on the grounds that it is a non-notable vessel, ignoring the fact that, (if as now seems likely) there are two vessels named Naeraberg that have been accidentally confused here, and that all pages titled with both ships'  previous names (Dirk Dirk, Dirk Diederik KW 172, FV Geelong Star all redirect back to the page you now want deleting, namely Naeraberg.

This leaves me to conclude one of four things:
 * 1) I haven't got a clue what I'm doing, and am missing something really obvious here; (OK, two  IP addresses, but I'm concluding  it's the same person)
 * 2) You haven't much of an idea what you're doing (see WP:CIR);
 * 3) You could have easily resolved the issue by inserting the right photo/details of the vessel in question and discussing your concerns on the article's  talk page; or
 * 4) You have a non-neutral agenda to remove an article about a ship whose activities have been the subject of serious environmental and political concerns in Australia.

I'd welcome you telling me which one seems most likely. I do accept that the original article would have benefited from greater clarity, but this in no way justifies your disruptive actions in my opinion. I'm quite happy for this to go to AFD, but I would be !voting snow keep, citing the evidence given above. Either way, I'm thinking that a revert back to its original state and possibly a request for a degree of page protection might be in order to encourage proper engagement to discuss content concerns, and at a pace that suits all editors, not just yours. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Naeraberg disruptive editting
Please be aware there has been disruptive editing on this article and I strongly recommend using the reading and using the talk page to achieve consensus before editing the Naeraberg article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Leigh Griffiths. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Thegreatluigi (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Leigh Griffiths, you may be blocked from editing. Thegreatluigi (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2018 (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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Leigh Griffiths. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Leigh Griffiths was changed by 86.187.172.17 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.885331 on 2018-11-27T22:00:40+00:00 Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)