User talk:E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr

Edit Summaries
Avoid inappropriate summaries - Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines, or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack. See: WP:SUMMARYNO, It's not necessary for you to refer to me in every edit summary - FOX 52 talk! 01:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. There's no reason to be snarky in your reverts, as you did here. BilCat (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Bilcat exactly what are you claiming that I vandalized? The primary users listing in the fact box listed the USAF, US marines, US Navy, and the RAF as the top 4 primary users. However Japan has more F-35s on order, and I believe multiple countries have more F-35s in service than the RAF. So my FIRST edit, was to change the 4th primary user to Japan as they had the largest number of F-35s on order. Then Bilcat you reverted that edit, and claimed primary users rankings go by the highest number of F-35's currently in service, which would mean Australia would be the 4th highest primary user. For you to accuse me of vandalism is absurd, and I think you're accusing me of being snarky just to shift attention away from some kind of favoratism towards the RAF, and frankly your behaviour in regards to this matter must be investigated and appropriate action taken against you. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a generic fourth level warning for disruptive editing, as already received a third level warning for inappropriate edit summaries, with an note clarifying what it was for. I had previously placed the RAF in the infobox as they are the only fourth-level partner, not because of any favoratism towards them. I still prefer that, but yes, the RAAF currently has more in service. And yes, I know the difference. BilCat (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit
Accusing someone of "trolling" due to a dispute is incivil. Your call for admins to step in is a bit pointless, as I am an admin, and my noting your disruptive behavior should have been a wake up call to you. If you keep this up, yes, you will be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 07:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * you had no grounds to accuse me of being "disruptive" in your reversion of my edit. You're being uncivil in your edits - with your accusations and defamation against me. Your decision to revert my edit is vandalism. You had no grounds, no logical reason to undo my edit - so now you wrote "this is getting disruptive" - after I made two unique edits. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion if you're thinking of appealing this block. You've been here only a few months and made maybe a few hundred edits. When you find yourself in disputes with people who have been here for years and have contributed many thousands of edits (and especially when it involves people who have been trusted by the community to act as administrators), you should maybe stop and wonder whether they might be right. And perhaps discuss your differences with them in a civil manner. Escalating disagreements into instant confrontation and attack is absolutely not the way to go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There was absolutely zero negative intent behind writing "there's a difference between RAF and RAAF" that could have been a spelling error which is why I wrote there's a difference between the two. I did take Bilcat's reversion comment into account, with my second edit that changed from Japan to Australia. This was all unnecessary, in the end you changed the 4th primary user to Australia. With that I don't like the way I'm being treated here and the accusations against me are going overboard. Today was a good example, I think if Bilcat thought I was being "snarky", I would have really appreciated him asking me "what do you mean 'there's a difference'?" So there's a little bit of jumping to conclusions. I thought I was being constructive by taking his advice about the rules around 'primary users' and saying "ok let's give some credit to Australia then if it's not Japan". E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I noted at ANI, I actually agree with you that the warning was inappropriate. However it also wasn't something that belonged at ANI. Just like Bilcat should have just talked to you about their concerns without using an uncalled for warning template, you should have just talked to Bilcat about your concerns over their warning. More to the point, if Bilcat's warning was minorly inappropriate, your comments on ANI took the cake. It's a little silly to complain about someone overreacting to an edit summary of yours when you followed that up with a far more serious overreaction full of personal attacks and other inappropriate stuff at ANI, isn't it? Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "RAF" vs. "RAAF" might be a typo. "Royal Air Force" vs "Royal Australian Air Force" spelled out is less likely to be a typo, which is why I took the comment as snark. BilCat (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't of content, which I already said was purely debatable in good faith. It was about behavior, multiple legal claims of "defamation" and unreasonable and irrational reactions to normal situations. BilCat's warning about that one edit really didn't apply, but the disruption has been going on for a while. Good people can disagree, but they have to disagree in reasonable ways.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)