User talk:UBQITOSW

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to List of current ships of the United States Navy does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! - wolf 16:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You still aren't adding edit summaries to any of your edits. This is a community accepted norm and is expected of all editors. Your most recent edits to "List of current USN ships" have been reverted. You were removing access dates from refs and without an edit summary explaining your reasons for this, no one has any idea why you would do that. Please start adding summaries to all your edits going forward, this makes life little easier for your fellow editors. Thank you - wolf 19:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the correct/current source when adding or changing content (eg: see here). Thanks. - wolf 04:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer[edit]

Dude, I literally just asked you, like 20 minutes ago, to please add an updated source when you add/change content. In the case of DDG-118, I even provided a link to the source I added for you. Then you go and change the same date, for the same ship, on a different page... and still don't add the ref that was handed to you? What's up with that? I, again, added it for you. In the future, please source your edits, or they will be considered wp:or and reverted. If you do that enough times, your editing can be considered disruptive. I don't think you want that. FYI - wolf 04:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to List of current ships of the United States Navy does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! - wolf 16:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For like the... third? fourth? time... will you please attach an edit summary to your edits? You haven't left one yet. You also haven't posted a single talk page comment, (user or article), Refusal to explain edits or communicate with others can become an issue. I've seen others blocked at ANI for that. FYI - wolf 08:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, give it try. It won't kill you and it helps others. - wolf 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally adding an edit summary to your contributions, but I noted that the changes you are making are based on sources you are noting in your summaries (eg; Facebook entries for ship dates), but you are not attaching those sources to the content you are adding to the article. These sources aren't really of any use to readers if they are only in the edit summary, and additionally, if they aren't properly added to the article, then the content you've added appears to be unsupported and can be removed. Please attach your sources as "refs" to the content your adding, per WP:CITE. And please keep adding edit summaries to explain your changes. Thanks - wolf 05:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing.
Note: see this edit. - wolf 16:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Underlying lk, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - wolf 16:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

It would make like easier for your fellow editors if they knew what the **** you were doing without having to sort through all your changes. So, why don't you make it easier for yourself to leave an edit summary?

• "You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary".

Problem solved. - wolf 16:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add sources (refs) to the content, per WP:RS & WP:CITE? When you add them to the edit summary, (like here), they are next-to-useless. I already messaged you about this last July. Readers do not go searching through the page history to find refs, nor should they have to. When you add content, but do not attach refs, your content appears to be unsupported and can be removed.

Edit summaries. Yet again...[edit]

You've been asked about this numerous times. You refuse to leave edit summaries, except to stick refs in there. (wtf?) Also, your refusal to communicate, to acknowledge issues with your editing or discuss matters you are involved in, is an issue. I'm making a simple request; demonstrate that you are competent enough to contribute to Wikipedia, by adding proper refs, leaving summaries of your edits and communicating when necessary. Just like everyone else here. Otherwise, this could become a problem.

Edits you make without proper sourcing may be reverted. Edits that do not appear necessary or are not an improvement, and are not explained with a summary may be reverted. As your edits are reverted, more and more warnings may be placed on your talk page. You will be called upon to discuss these matters at some point, and a refusal to communicate, along with a history of never communicating, can be reported at ANI. Editors have been blocked in the past for this. Sometimes indefinitely, or until they start communicating on their page. Another problem with ANI is the attention it brings. Say, for example you're a sock or you are ban-evading. That can be quickly discovered.

But all of this right now is conjecture. How about just following the rules and expectations here like everyone else? Sound like a plan? Hope so - wolf 17:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... for this. Really, it makes a difference. - wolf 17:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...it's back to no edit summaries. You haven't left one since your edit noted above. Any reason for that? You've shown that you read and understand these comments, and that you know how to add edit summaries, so is there a reason why you refuse to do so? - wolf 04:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the list of ships that are on order, or "Future ships", if you scroll to the bottom of the list, you will see a <!----suppressed list of entries---->, basically ships that could potentially be added. When you added LCS-31 today, you left the suppressed entry, creating a duplicate. In the future, please move the existing, instead of creating another. Thanks. (btw- you forgot to update the numbers, but I got that. All I ask in in return is that you start adding edit summaries. It wouldn't kill you to do so and it would be helpful to others. Thanks). - wolf 04:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to revert someone, (in this case, me) then you need to explain why. Again, this is precisely what edit summaries are for. As your talk page confirms, you have been asked numerous times to provide edit summaries, but you continually refuse to do so. Additionally, this particular revert is somewhat bizarre. I removed a tag that stated the article had notability issues, because like all other new article/stubs about US Navy ships, the article subject is notable. You then revert me, re-adding that tag, while adding sources. This is why its bizarre. You have erred in undoing my edit as you were not reverting the page, and you also contradicted yourself by re-adding that notability tag while adding the very sources that confirm its notability.

If you don't know what doing, then don't do it. Ask for help (eg: the help desk). When you make mistakes like this, you disrupt the article and create work others that have to clean up after you.

Lastly, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and part of that is communication. You have shown that you can communicate, in clear English, on talk pages, when it suits you, yet you refuse to respond to talk page posts and add edit summaries. Editors need to communicate with each other, and at the very least, acknowledge they have read and understood comments and notices. You should know that several other editors have previously been blocked for refusing to communicate. So please, learn the rules and start collaborating. Thank you. - wolf 14:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...forget to sign in again? - wolf 22:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this edit I made to the 'commissioned ships' table today. I made corrections to two recent changes you made. FYI. - wolf 18:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UBQITOSW: You use the dablink template if there two relations by name. scope_creep^Talk 11:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC) @UBQITOSW:, It is done under NPP review. I don't know about another somewhere else. The rules are the rules. scope_creep^Talk 11:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll create this page, again, if USS Harrisburg still exist after one month. UBQITOSW (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to USS Pierre, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 11:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of current ships of the United States Navy; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
SmartyPants22 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmartyPants22 If this is edit war, that is you are provoking first, not me. UBQITOSW (talk)

You are just reverting edits, without gaining any third party opinions, or reaching a consensus; I asked you nicely to engage in discussion, and not to start an Edit War, but obviously you didn't listen. SmartyPants22 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:UBQITOSW reported by User:SmartyPants22 (Result: ). Thank you.

Hello UBQITOSW. You are risking a block from editing. This would be a good time to respond and promise to make no more changes to the article until an agreement is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated at AN3 that a logical outcome is a block of your account. This might be avoided if you will reply and make some concession about your future editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you have been maintaining the page while I was away which is both great and appreciated. That said, I reverted one of your edits today, where you changed a ship status from "on order" to "under construction". I saw that your edit summary was "per NVR". While that may be technically correct, on WP we typically don't list ships as actually being under construction until their keel has been laid.

I wanted to ask if you have made any other of such changes. I'll be doing a total review and clean up of that page soon and any such problems you can identify would be helpful. Cheers - wolf 09:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added note[edit]

I see you made a similar change with USS Cleveland (LCS-31), showing is as being under construction. You simply noted it as "per NVR" in the edit summary, but did not add anything of use to the article, such as a ref. This is not helpful and you've been around long enough now to know better. Please self-revert and correct any other similar edits you've made. This can otherwise cause problems that other editors will have to sort out and clean up. Thanks - wolf 10:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild, in ship construction, the milestone for a ship to reach "under construction" is start fabrication, aka "cut steel", i.e. cut her first piece of steel for The ship. This marks the start preparation for the prefabricated sections. When the prefabricated sections are really ready to be assembled into a ship, it's time to "keel laid", the ship is probably more than 50 percent complete at this point. For example, via the NAVSEA press release, when USS Lyndon B. Johnson, a Zumwalt-class destroyer, officially started keel laid, she was "nearing 60 percent completion" on her construction work. UBQITOSW (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if Naval Vessel Register labelled one United States Navy ship as "under construction", it usually means that she has already "start fabrication".UBQITOSW (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I ('we', in fact) are aware that when ship contracts are finalized, there are set milestones for long-lead materials and such, and when multiple ships are ordered, such as the smaller LCSs, some sub-contractors start fabricating components en masse , etc., etc.

But I'm also making sure that you're aware that on the list of USN ships page, there is a long-standing consensus that ships aren't listed as "under construction" until the keel has been laid. There has been an instruction stating as such on the page for years. While it's possible that some ships (especially ones without a keel-laying as such) can be listed as "under construction" if there has been a significant amount of work completed and there are sources to support it (other than the NVR), we should otherwise stick to the long-held standards of the page.

Nothing is carved in stone however. If you wish to try and build a new consensus on the USN ships talk page, go right ahead. But in the meantime, please keep to the established page processes. (That includes self-reverting any edits that are out of process on both that page and any other USN-related pages that need to maintain consistency with the main list of USN ships. Thanks - wolf 22:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Example, please see this edit. Thanks - wolf 11:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on what? The contract just went out in last January, at the beginning of the of the major, world-wide pandemic that we are still in the grips of, so how much construction do you think has been accomplished? How far along are they? Do you know? Great! Then please add refs to support these changes, (something other than the NVR), or move these ships back to the "on order" section on the USN ships page, and all related pages you've edited, where they should be... (like the nav-boxes of their main articles say), because we have different articles saying different things now. We can't have that. Please fix this. I shouldn't have to go through all of your edits to check them and fix them for you. You are capable of doing good work here. I've seen that before. - wolf 12:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. First let me say that you have been doing a good job keeping a lot ship articles up to date, so thank you for that. That said, I have to ask (for like the bah-zillionth time); why won't you leave edit summaries (even the simplest or briefest ones) to let others know what kind of changes you've made? (There are even Edit summary abbreviations you can use to make it quicker/easier - see the Quick reference chart).

• Please leave an edit summary.

Another issue I wanted to ask you about, that ties-in with edit summaries, is; why do you leave just plain urls in the edit summary, instead of an actual edit summary? They are all but useless there, especially when you don't actually add them as a ref to the article.

• Please don't leave ref/urls in the edit summary.

Lastly, when you leave urls in the edit summary, especially lengthy ones, they disrupt user's watchlists, (at least, on certain devices, such as smartphones, which A LOT of people with now).

• Please don't disrupt the watchlist with urls.

Here is an example of all three problems listed above in just a single one of your edits. So again, while all your efforts here are appreciated, if you could just address this issue with your edit summaries, that would be great. Thanks - wolf 02:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild:I placed the urls in the edit summary because these sources are usually the posts by official social media accounts. those social media website, however, are on the blacklist in WP:RSPSRC, but if I don’t write the sources, the corresponding content will be added without source. So I have no choice but to add these urls to the edit summary. UBQITOSW (talk) 13:48 14 January 2021 (UTC)

1. So out of everything written above about your lack of edit summaries, you only address the urls? Meanwhile, I see you made another edit to a USN ship page today and again didnt leave an edit summary. WHY do you do this? Is it because you forget? If that's the case, then in your preferences there is a setting you can use so that a pop-up prompt will remind you to leave an edit summary before you publish;

1a. go to: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing

1b. then select: "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)"

2. That said, if you're changing content based on sources you can't use, then you should either;

2a. request that the blacklisted source be whitelisted, so you can use it,

2b. find another source, or

2c. not change the content without a reliable source. (That's the policy answer)

3. However, you could add the edit summary; "moving USS Foo from "on order" to "under construction" per ref - see talk" then list the ref on the article talk page. I would be ok with that, but I don't know if others would. At least you would be leaving edit summary and you wouldn't be messing up people's watchlists.

4. Please leave an edit summary with every edit that lets people know what you've done, but not urls. Thank you - wolf 17:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I see you've been leaving some edit summaries and wanted to thank you for that (did you do the preferences thing, or is it just a conscious effort?) That said, I wanted to ask about this edit; was this because of the blacklisting problem? And if so, did you check out the whitelisting link? (seriously, urls in the edit summary affect the watchlist page, there should probably be a guideline about it). But anyway, thanks again for the effort at leaving summaries. - wolf 03:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again[edit]

Been a few months, but I noticed this edit today, with the url; https://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/releases/huntington-ingalls-industries-begins-fabrication-of-national-security-cutter-friedman-nsc-11 in the edit summary. This isn't a blacklisted url, and as I mentioned before, leaving them in the summary can be disruptive for mobile displays, and last, but certainly still very important: leaving refs in the summary for sourcing purposes, is next to useless. It is essentially adding unsourced content. Refs need to be attached to the content your adding or updating, per WP:CITE. Will you please try to comply with this? Thank you - wolf 19:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...need to be attached to content. They are next to useless in an edit summary. (I'm sure this has come up before, no?) With your latest edit, you cited facebook, which is not a blacklisted link, so there is no reason why it couldn't be added to the article per WP:CITE. A quick Google search shows that info is also available via other sources as well. The work you do updating USN pages is appreciated, but only when it is done correctly, and when it doesn't create more work for other editors. - wolf 18:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs. Again...[edit]

Stop posting links in edit summaries. If you persist with this behavior, while also refusing to WP:ENGAGE in any discussion, you can expect to be reported. You need to follow the guidelines, just like everyone else. - wolf 17:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild But I have no idea, these post, on the blacklisted social media websites in WP:RSPSRC, are the only source, and I couldn't found a more reliable source on Google. Do you have any ideas? UBQITOSW (talk) 13:42 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I already addressed the blacklist/whitelist issue with you above, which you ignored. So the short answer; stop using WP:FACEBOOK. Find better sources, attach them properly to the content you're editing, and leave an edit summary. - wolf 17:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of modern armament manufacturers, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So who are you? Is that Horse Eye's Jack or User:Horse Eye's Back, or neither? Can you prove who that is? UBQITOSW (talk) 14:05 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I signed my comment, it was also logged by wikipedia’s systems. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are Horse Eye's Back, a copycat of Horse Eye's Jack, who has been reached initial consensus with me and your targets is vandalism of the entries on Wikipedia. Am I right? UBQITOSW (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get copycat from? I’m open about both accounts being mine. I’d suggest you peruse WP:NPA before using the v word again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the conversation you think resulted in an initial consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said that both accounts belong to you, but you can't prove it and all you have is just one side of your stroy. UBQITOSW (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not seeing a link to a conversation where you and I came to a consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your evidence? You can't prove it that your're User:Horse Eye's Jack, via creating redirect by yourself. UBQITOSW (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you reached an initial consensus with Horse Eye Jack by all means link it, I don’t remember that happening. Remember that all interaction on wiki are public, theres a permanent record of each and every one. Its not possible for two honest editors to have a “story” which isn’t fully in the public record. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you still can't prove you're Horse Eye's Jack, right? The copycat. UBQITOSW (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need to? Also its Horse Eye Jack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said on your user page that you have lost the password of Horse Eye's Jack in August 2018, but Horse Eye's Jack was still active in April this year. How do you explain this? UBQITOSW (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t active in April this year on that account. Do you have any diffs or links of this activity? Also again its Horse Eye Jack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UBQITOSW, you need to be careful with the accusations. He's declared the other account (did you even look at his userpage?) which is all that is required. Meanwhile you're facing a possible edit warring block at the armament manufacturer list and that doesn't take into account the other problems with your editing, all documented above. Slow down. Learn the policies & guidelines and communicate more collegially. - wolf 17:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of modern armament manufacturers, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of modern armament manufacturers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of modern armament manufacturers 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly suggest that you do not restore the material to List of modern armament manufacturers again. If you think it should be restored, please explain why at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the decommissioned LCSs have gone to the reserve. You removed LCS-1 from active but didn't relist it. Also, if you could update the fleet totals as you go, that would be appreciated. - wolf 01:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Ships Barnstar
		You have improved these past couple years and have done some good work on USN ships articles. The community appreciates it. Keep up the good work! - wolf 05:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of equipment of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortar. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should be cautious about swapping out WP:SECONDARY sources for WP:PRIMARY sources (like here for an example), as secondary sources usually take precendent. (fyi) - wolf 18:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UBQ, I've seen the good work you've been doing keeping the list of USN ships and related ship pages up-to-date, but I noticed that today you put the refs in the edit summaies instead citing them in the article. I believe I mentioned this before (somewhere up above) but that is next to useless. Please add the refs you are basing your changes on in the article. Thank you - wolf 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - wolf 09:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:隐世高人 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/隐世高人. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

UBQITOSW (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm a resident of PR China and Communist China government has blocked access to all projects related to Wikimedia Foundation in normal methods. That's why I need VPN when I editing on enwp. In such situation, I'm sharing the same proxy VPN server with others from PR China, also. So I'm not a sockpuppet of another, but the one who has the same IP ranges caused by the same proxy server sharing by me and others. I'm not responsible for any behaviours of other editors. Finally, I hope administrators could unblock my account and resume my IPBE on enwp, Thanx! UBQITOSW (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sockpuppetry based on more than just proxy use. Yamla (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well that sucks. UBQ was doing a pretty good job of keeping a slew of ship articles up to date. If this is mistake, hopefully it gets sorted out, otherwise, you'll need to start work on convincing the admins that you're sorry and won't sock anymore. Good luck. - wolf 22:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Just FYI this account has the same master as the Bulleye Jackie attack account. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Thewolfchild for your advice. This is my only account and I just share the same proxy server with others from PR China, not the sockpuppet of the others. Whatever Horse Eye's Back thinks or says on the topic related to me and sockpuppet, it's not really and just his speculation. For example, he said that I and other accounts use a similar editing style and even recycle edit summaries on List of modern armament manufacturers, but these are not surprising to me. Because it doesn't tell anything by comparing it in the same list article, and since I share the same proxy server with the others living in PR China, we have similar English education backgrounds as non-native English speakers. UBQITOSW (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

UBQITOSW (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Just like I said above on 11 May, I'm the one who uses the same IP ranges with others due to sharing the same proxy server and this is my only account. I promise that I will never use sockpuppet(s) here and now. Once again, I hope administrators could unblock my account and resume my IPBE on enwp, Thanx (also to Thewolfchild)! UBQITOSW (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just like Yamla mentioned above, I'm confident that sockpuppetry is occurring here based on more than just proxy use. SQL^{Query Me!} 20:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.