User talk:IndyCar1020

Welcome!
Hi IndyCar1020! I noticed your contributions to Machine code&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Mucube (talk · contribs) 20:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

June 2023
Your recent editing history at Ada Lovelace shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Felida97 (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm the one that included a peer reviewed IEEE reference that states the current opening paragraph as it was before (and now is, again) is wrong. Why are you doing this? IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Independent of this specific situation, I just want to note that edit warring is edit warring, even if you're right. "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." (see WP:EW). Felida97 (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not an experienced editor at Wikipedia. However, I will be surprised if there are no limitations to the notion of when something is "edit warring".
 * My memory isn't what it used to be, but what I believe happened is that someone removed the cited literature. Again, I'm not an expert in the internal rules of Wikipedia, but common sense dictates that: I would strongly suspect that removing peer reviewed research, which is of a more recent nature than the existing literature cited, is a form of vandalism.
 * The way this should work, again according to common sense, is as follows:
 * We're basically writing a survey paper in academic terms, but one where we're not allowed to make any original research, make statements, or other original contributions beyond simply summarizing the existing literature.
 * I present my findings, i.e. I cite the literature I deem to be the latest, then someone else is welcome to find other research that refutes this. In that case, both citations should remain.
 * In this case, when there is a breakthrough, from a highly regarded figure, with no serious challenges to oppose it, then it would be unfair to simply state that this is "yet another opinion". The line has to be drawn at some point, and in lack of any other literature to cite, then this is clearly such a case. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Wretchskull (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * One week? Just go ahead and ban me completely to demonstrate that you are correct regarding Ada Lovelace. Just ban me, and everyone else that comes in your way in the future.
 * I had a suspicion that the Wikipedia community was this flawed before I started editing. This confirms all of my fears.
 * I will refer to this course of events whenever anyone discusses Wikipedia ever again in my presence, to point out how flawed it is. IndyCar1020 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Ada Lovelace. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)




 * As long as you fail to understand that content disputes are not vandalism, you're not going to get far with these requests or with the changes you want made. You're not blocked for violating WP:3RR, you're blocked for edit warring. And that's all. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 05:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

On the virtues of modesty and docility

 * TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
 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 at the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I make contributions. Why do you say I'm not here to build an encyclopedia?
 * I didn't even write anything on the Ada Lovelace article, instead I started talk points to identify what I've done wrong.
 * I also reached out to you to explain myself and ask what I've done wrong.
 * Please explain to me why this deserves a permanent block. IndyCar1020 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I make contributions
I make other contributions. Why do you say I'm not here to build an encyclopedia?

It is unfair to say I only cause trouble.

I didn't even write anything on the Ada Lovelace article, instead I started talk points on the Talk Page to identify what I've done wrong.

I also reached out to you to explain myself and ask what I've done wrong.

I'm sorry for being arrogant. I feel overlooked and offended. I will try to improve if I get another chance. :( IndyCar1020 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd highly recommend that you read Here to build an encyclopedia. When editors above say that you are "not here to build an encyclopedia", this essay is what they are referencing. It's not just a negative statement thrown out there that doesn't mean anything. Please read it thoughtfully and carefully, honestly asking yourself which of these points apply to you. If, after reading this, you realize which of these apply to you, see if you can think of ways to not be that way/not do those things. Take your time, and don't be in a hurry. An indefinite block is open-ended, but not necessarily permanent, so you have time to reflect. Wikipedia will still be here, however long the process takes you.


 * Afterwards, read Guide to appealing blocks. In particular, consider the point "that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions insted". Focus on your own behavior, attitude, and actions, and try to show how you will avoid these problems in the future.


 * If you are able to do those things, you will be on the road to coming back. Your next appeal may be declined, but try to learn from the decline statement. You are obviously a smart and intelligent person. I believe you can learn from this, and return to editing Wikipedia as an editor who make positive contributions. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for unblock
You already have an unreviewed block request. Please do not open another while your other one is still pending. Additional requests will not get yours reviewed any faster, nor influence the result. If anything, it just adds to administrator workload and annoyance.

If you have additional comments to make, please just enter them as regular comments and do not use the template. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) I don't see why using a chatbot to state the reasons for being unblocked is a bad thing, I wasn't aware that was against the rules. I'm arrogant and hadn't studied the rules of Wikipedia. I'm more familiar with them now, and I'm sorry for causing problems. Despite that, I think it is unfair to say I'm here to build an encyclopedia as a general statement. I have made other contributions.