Mark.T2009

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Byford Dolphin, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Byford Dolphin

You may be the original author, but nobody owns articles. The sources cited in the "References" section support statements in the text. If you want to support statements made in the text, then use an in-line citation to a reliable source so that others can verify the information. Please take the time to read some basic wikipedia policies and try to understand what is customary here. External links really ought to be in English - this is the English Wikipedia. If you quote an ISBN, please make sure that the number can be used to find the book you think it refers to. I was unable to find any such book via the ISBN you gave. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing those sources in English. I've tried to add a paragraph to the article using those sources, as neutrally as I can. I'll remove the external links as they are now used as citations for the text. --RexxS (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Byford Dolphin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please engage in discussion of your edits at the talk page, rather than continually re-inserting the same unsourced material. RexxS (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally think you are taking an arrogant stance, regarding the editing of the content, im all for disccusion, but now that iv'e added a reference that states that Comex requested compensation for vital equipment onboard the bell system on byford dolphin. I don't see how you can excessively make the use of 'citation needed' edits.

I think it's time for another moderator to take over, as you clearly lack background knowledge regarding the incident. what you are doing is hiding vital information, that is common knowledge to the parties involved offshore at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.T2009 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks - I'd appreciate your retracting the "arrogant" epithet. If you're all for discussion, then why have you discussed nothing on the article talk page? Your total contribution to the article has been to insert unsourced, speculative material; to remove the templates requesting citations; to put external links into the references section; and to remove a wikiproject's assessment template from the talk page. I have tried as hard as I can to be helpful, by pointing you to the policies requiring sourcing and even tried to incorporate a source you provided. I feel I have no option now, but to report your actions to the Administrators' noticeboard. --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to make a final attempt to help you. You should try to understand that I have no "axe to grind" about Byford Dolphin and I do recognise that you feel strongly about it. I was able to add some text to the article based on the two sources in English that you provided. It is disappointing that you haven't been able to copy what I did to provide sources for the paragraph you feel should be in the article. Here is my current list of concerns about your editing:

1. You have repeatedly inserted a paragraph that makes a number of claims that I have asked to be sourced. I can see that you are trying to link the paragraph to this book, but very few editors on the English Wikipedia will be able to use that to verify your text. I have sought an opinion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Hopefully, they will confirm that the book is a reliable source and it verifies the paragraph. If not, then I will insist that the paragraph is removed once more unless a reliable source can be found. That is not censorship, it is merely a requirement that text added to Wikipedia complies with two of its fundamental policies.
2. You have repeatedly removed maintenance templates without addressing the concerns. "Some individuals ..." are weasel words and you removed {{who}} without saying who the individuals are. Similarly, I placed the {{cn}} templates to give you a clue about which statements could be challenged and therefore required direct sourcing. You simply removed them without providing the sources requested.
3. You have repeatedly placed external links in the References section, despite the rest of the article having in-line citations and that fact being pointed out to you. I do understand that you are new to Wikipedia, but I made an edit that included the external links you provided earlier as an example of how to make references. If you could not understand that, then why not ask for help, rather than repeating the same mistake?
4. There is a wikipedia guideline Don't Template The Regulars. Please read it. I can excuse your actions because of your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia practices. But please believe me when I say I am familiar with WP:NOT and do not need you to attempt to explain it to me twice. Please desist from placing any further superfluous templates on my talk page. Removing them (with an apology) would be step toward learning how to edit in a collegial atmosphere.
5. The {{WPSCUBA}} template is placed on article talk pages by members of WP:WikiProject SCUBA as part of an effort to assess article quality and performance. It is nothing to do with promotion of anything, as you would find if you take the time to examine Category:WikiProject SCUBA articles. You will find that there are numerous articles related to Commercial diving - which is just as much within the scope of WikiProject SCUBA as recreational diving is. It is not your place to remove article assessment templates placed by WikiProjects to which you do not belong; nor do you have any right to insist on your definition of the scope of any WikiProject. Please revert your deletion of the template.
6. Most seriously, you have personalised my edits. To call me "arrogant" is a personal attack, no matter whether you think it is or not. The edits I have made have all been within wikipedia policy: removal of unsourced material - please read WP:V, particularly noting "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed"; removal of inappropriate external links - please read WP:EL. Please reflect on whether the average editor on Wikipedia would view your edits in the same light.

The usual practice on Wikipedia when retracting a personal attack is either to remove it or to strike it out like this: <s>text struck out</s>. I await your replies to my concerns. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

Please when you are contributing to talk pages make sure you sign your contributions. You do it by adding four tildes after the text, like this: ~~~~. They will be converted to your username and the date+time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three revert rule

Please make sure you are aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule which mandates an automatic block for anyone reverting an article more than three times in 24 hrs. By my count you have reverted Byford Dolphin three times already. You may and should continue discussing the edits on the talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

You wrote:

Please make sure you have your facts straight before going ahead with a citation needed dispute, have you even bothered to read the NOU commission report of march the 22nd 1984 on the subject, where it clearly states that norske veritas issued a safety law regarding ail-safe hatches and interlocking mechanism demand back in 1982, prior to the accident. Do you at all understand the term dispensation within the oil indsutry? Mark.T2009 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The first answer is that when I ask for a citation (using the {{fact}} template), I am not entering into a dispute. I am asking the person who wrote the paragraph (i.e. you) to supply a citation to the source you used for your information.

The second answer is no. If the report supports what you are writing, cite it, and make sure anyone (not just me) can check that what you wrote is supported. That's what we mean by verifying. The third answer is yes. I know exactly what a dispensation is. I also know that none of the five sources used as references in the text contain the word 'dispensation' or any mention of operators being allowed to postpone the installation of equipment to improve safety. The BBC article supports the contention that essential safety equipment was not installed, but does not say that anyone gave a dispensation not to fit that equipment. Either write what can be sourced already or find a reliable source that backs up what you claim. In the meantime, I'd advise you strongly not to start slinging 'vandalism' accusations (your edit summary here) at other editors who are removing your unsourced additions. --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)