Bateros
Joined 3 July 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Blablubbs in topic July 2023
Tag bombing 4 July
editYou are Wikipedia:Tag bombing multiple pages that I have created: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]] and [[8]]. As you seem to have a problem with so many of them, you can explain your specific concerns in each case on the Talk Pages. Mztourist (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've no idea who created them - I'm just looking through vietnamese war articles alphabetically.
- The tag is self-explanatory and let's other editors know they can help by adding more sources to articles that rely on a single source. This is basic stuff, and doesn't really need to be addressed at each talk page, but i will do so if that makes you happier. Bateros (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Tag bombing is disruptive when the tagger makes no effort to improve WP. Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Highlighting to editors articles that need more sources (and are currently largely cut and pastes of PD text) IS improving WP. Bateros (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- You are clearly doing it to undermine the legitimacy of the pages. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm doing it in the hope that the pages are improved with multiple sources. But you're right, I think there is a legitimacy issue for cut and paste pages with 10-20 repeated citations of a single source. this is something that should be highlighted to aid improvement, and that's why this tag exists Bateros (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, you clearly don't like pages that detail US military sucesses in the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- What on earth has caused that leap of logic?
- It does serve to rather illustrate the issue though - I doubt you'd be as happy with an article cut and pasted from a North Vietnamese Army historian's work in the same way without an other sources. Unlikely to be a problem though is it, since the Vietnam war is one of the unsual examples where the history has been written by the vanquished! (This is a joke) Bateros (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm more than happy to add details from the official Vietnamese military history as they haven't updated their wartime propaganda and so the accounts and casualty claims are often laughable. One of the more balanced examples I added was here: [9] Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, you clearly don't like pages that detail US military sucesses in the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm doing it in the hope that the pages are improved with multiple sources. But you're right, I think there is a legitimacy issue for cut and paste pages with 10-20 repeated citations of a single source. this is something that should be highlighted to aid improvement, and that's why this tag exists Bateros (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- You are clearly doing it to undermine the legitimacy of the pages. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Highlighting to editors articles that need more sources (and are currently largely cut and pastes of PD text) IS improving WP. Bateros (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Tag bombing is disruptive when the tagger makes no effort to improve WP. Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
edit
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.