User talk:Shipseggsbasket: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:44, 2 April 2008

Hello, Shipseggsbasket! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Battle of Narva

Whoa, nice edit at the battle of Narva, removing the Swedish sources and only including the Russian source to make it look less disastrous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtehprwn (talk • contribs)

Those edits were false as you and I both know, and it is amusing you, the greatest vandal who changes numbers to fit your own purpose no matter if they have sources or not would quote me on references, we both know what you are and what you want Shipseggsbasket (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who's false, It's a known fact that the Russian army were crushed, the source I use is directly from one of the officers who were present at Narva who counted to 30,000 prisoners, I don't know what you get for deleting my sources, because I am not deleting yours, It's just a pathetic attempt to show that the Russian army didn't loose the massive amount that they actually did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtehprwn (talk • contribs) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checked your contributions and saw that you're just following me and are deleting my contributions, that is slimy, since you, in many cases, doesn't have any sources while I do have sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtehprwn (talk • contribs) 12:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha of course you have sources haha what a joke, no what you are doing is changing the numbers to fit your agenda and if you have sources why don’t you link them, and we both know that this is not about sources which you delete this is all about you changing the numbers to fit your agenda Shipseggsbasket (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shipseggsbasket, I would like you to first assume good faith, and read what is happening. What I see is that user Irtehprwn is changing numbers and adds references which state those numbers. The numbers you revert to are unreferenced/unattributed, so unless you can give me a good reason why, I tend to believe Irtehprwn edits more than yours. Can you produce references for your numbers? Until then, Irtehprwn's edits stand, and I will consider edits to unreferenced numbers as vandalism. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am already writing on your talk page and link you absolute proof of his vandalism he started back in 2007 with his vandalism and right now currently now as in this second I am linking you the proof of at least 50 articles where he just changed the numbers because he felt so wait 10 minutes and it will all be shown to you in green red and yellow Shipseggsbasket (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, his references give these numbers. So there is disagreement. Reverting and quarreling does not solve the situation, please come to a compromise, which you indeed both are not trying. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me 10 minutes and I will prove to you absolutely with direct links of what he is doing Shipseggsbasket (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask you the same as I asked User:Irtehprwn in my post on their talkpage, please find an appropriate wikiproject (together?), and start a discussion there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dude needs to be blocked and I am currently linking 50 times where he has just changed numbers because he felt so because it fits his agenda it is vandalism to just change numbers to delete references and just change the whole story and I will show you at least 50 times when he has done so, just give me 10 min to do itShipseggsbasket (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shipseggsbasket, thanks for the list of edits. I have been looking as well. I see indeed that he is changing numbers, and giving references. Here and there he gets reverted, and sometimes not. I do see that you have reverted him quite a couple of times, and have not tried to engage in discussion with him about that.

Apparently the two sources are not agreeing, which practically means that the info in the document is either not complete, or that one of the sources is very wrong. For me, at the moment, both sources can be correct, and I do still think that this should be handled by an appropriate wikiproject.

I hope that one of you two will take a step towards the wikiproject, and resolve this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He does NOT give references to 99,999999% of his edits do you not see thatShipseggsbasket (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the last edits, where s/he hey does (diff). Still s/he gets reverted without discussion or reason (diff). First s/he did not give references, s/he was not asked where s/he got their numbers, just reverted (someone could have asked him/her for sources). Now s/he provides references with the number changes, and still s/he gets reverted. Whose source is more reliable? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HE HE and it is a HE has changed the numbers in 100 of articles only a few of those have sources but since he has changed the numbers in a few hounded articles and gladly with orgasmic joy deleted references one can clearly assume that he has one goal, to minimize Swedish casualties and to maximize the casualties of whoever they were fighting in whatever war/battle, and if one actually looks at the references one can clearly see that they more often than not are homemade internet pages which often do not say what he claims Shipseggsbasket (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording is indeed strong. What I see that he changes numbers and changes the reference (diff). As I have said a couple of times, in his latest edits he uses references, and indeed changes them as well, for me both are sources, and I am not capable of checking which one of the two is more correct. I have taken my own suggestion, and await further discussion. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99,99999% of his edits are not sourced, out of those sources all are homemade pages, and he removes sources whenever he sees fit, he is the greatest vandal in all of wikipedia and i have linked you several time where he does not use sources do you want me to link you 100 times where he does not use sources? Shipseggsbasket (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen that. Those are all edits from september 2007. We are now 6 months later, and he does add/change sources. You did not point him then to supply sources, and now when he does you still revert. As I said, I am waiting from input from a wikiproject, I am not able to distinguish which source is more reliable, let alone if there is a correct number! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what date would make you happy? How about from 2008 do you want me to list some of the unreferenced edits from then? Shipseggsbasket (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would make me happy is some independent review of the references that are there and the references he is using now, and some statements from people, not directly involved in this 'dispute', that give me a feel of what is going on. Another thing that might make me happy would be that you try to discuss with this editor, and see if you two can work out what is correct to do. You still insist that his numbers are wrong, where there are edits where his source do give the numbers that he has given. As I have said a couple of times, I can't see which one of the sources is more correct, and maybe neither is. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His agenda is to change the battles to minimize Swedish casualties and to maximize whoever they were fighting, his "sources" are homemade pages and 99,99999% of his edits have no sources and deletes those that are. He has altered the numbers in 100s of articles and will continue to do so because that his agenda to minimize Swedish casualties and maximize whoever they were fighting, he is a vandal and he is the reason why there are problems with reliability in wikipedia, people with their own agenda who want to change battles and the outcome of them to fit their own needs Shipseggsbasket (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes

Yes I am a vandal, yes yes, who here is writing "rv the greatest vandal in all of wikipeida that makes up sources and deleted those that do not fit his agenda" on the edit summary? Is it me? no.

If I look through your contributions I will see that 95% of your edits are undoes from my contributions, at least I give sources.

At the battle of Narva for example, there are 3 sources, 2 Swedish and one which is probably Russian which wasn't added by me. I based the casualties from the sources, which you doesn't seem to do, you delete sources, includes the only one who doesn't mention the captives, that doesn't seem right to me.

The battle of Kircholm you completly removed my source and created a casualty number of your own, not referring to any source, you just made it up.

And if I now "create" my own numbers, how come I have sources for the most of them? While you haven't, so I think you are the vandal here, not me.

Your accusations are just ridicilous, that's all I have to say, you have also undoed articles like the Winter war, I don't know why.

Irtehprwn (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA sources ahh yes of course there are sources just like all of these sources you added here you ARE the biggest vandal in all of wikipedia

Do you really believe your own words like when you removed sourced figures like here and replace them with the numbers you pulled out from your behind? Shipseggsbasket (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I remove sourced figures? Irtehprwn (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha who are you kidding trying to play the innocent do you want me to link it all the 100s of times you have done so haha and when I link the 1 million times what will you say then ooo let me guess you won’t reply haha, we both know what you are so why do you play these games Shipseggsbasket (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of 3RR rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Narva (1700). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dude is a super vandal, I am only restoring the original pre- vandalized edits of the mega vandal. Shipseggsbasket (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:14, 2 April 2008 edit Coppertwig (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 17,229 edits →Be aware of 3RR rule: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:44, 2 April 2008 edit undo Shipseggsbasket (talk \| contribs) 174 edits →Be aware of 3RR rule Next edit →
Line 170:		Line 170:

	[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg\|30px\|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war\|edit war]]{{#if:Battle of Narva (1700)\| according to the reverts you have made on [[:Battle of Narva (1700)]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule\|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule\|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy\|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus\|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution\|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:\|{{{2}}}\|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> --[[User:Coppertwig\|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig\|talk]]) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)		[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg\|30px\|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war\|edit war]]{{#if:Battle of Narva (1700)\| according to the reverts you have made on [[:Battle of Narva (1700)]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule\|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule\|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy\|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus\|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution\|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:\|{{{2}}}\|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> --[[User:Coppertwig\|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig\|talk]]) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


			The dude is a super vandal, I am only restoring the original pre- vandalized edits of the mega vandal. [[User:Shipseggsbasket\|Shipseggsbasket]] ([[User talk:Shipseggsbasket#top\|talk]]) 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)