User talk:Agent L

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Agent L, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Submarine aircraft carrier have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

About your earlier edit[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge.
It is freely available, and incorporates elements of
general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.
For what it isn't, see what Wikipedia is not.

See also[edit]


A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.
Everything I wrote was taken from the article about Sea Dart. Is that OR? What I meant was to barely mention the only supersonic seaplane fighter in an article section dreaming about supersonic seaplane fighters. The entire last sentence (the one you've left) is pure speculation. The wikilink I added was actually backing up this dreams. You have actually made it OR.Agent L (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As I've noted that you are a novice editor here on Wikipedia, I honestly don't think I was ever rude towards you in the discussion above so there's no need for you to use that condescending/rude tone while discussing this. There are two things for you to note here: 1.) Submarine aircraft carrier and Convair F2Y Sea Dart are two separate article pages so when you add something from one page to another, you have to bring over the supporting reference (read: WP:Citing sources) to back up your claim(s) because if the content is not verifiable (read WP:Verifiability), then it will most certainly become WP:OR; 2.) If you care to read back again at what you've added, that same sentence was indeed bordering on WP:OR as well as violating another Wikipedia's policy (read WP:Neutral point of view). FWIW, you have to realise that those are not policies I personally made up but rather that of Wikipedia, so if the other regular editors can make it a point to follow them then I don't see why a novice such yourself cannot do so as well. Lastly, take your time to view the link and Wikipedia video I've provided you, what I cannot teach you are best summarised by the officially laid-down policies and video. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Being here since 2010 on en, 2006 on pl I don't consider myself exactly novice. I don't edit much precisely because I rarely have something complying with all rules. I'm sorry if you've found my tone condescending/rude. But you are patronizing me with all this copypasta. I do however have strong feeling that you're reading only my sentences - without context of the article I've added them to or context of the articles I linked to. What I'm trying to say is that the part you've left is breaking rules even harder. I'm not challenging the rules, I'm about applying them equally. Still - thanks for bringing this up to discussion.Agent L (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that I'm all for WP:Assume good faith and if I had sounded like I was patronising you when I'm actually not, then let me apologise to you for causing the misunderstanding. And for editors to collaborate together on Wikipedia, I would appreciate that you could also WP:Assume good faith with me. In short, try to WP:Assume the assumption of good faith because as in the real world, we need to find middle ground for us all to work together cooperatively... so what say you? Still want to go on and on about me on this or that issue? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that my edit does not violate any policy. Stating that "Sea Dart was such [jet seaplane] fighter design" IMHO does not need reference just like "Paris is the capital of France" because it is attributable. My edit alone is also neutral, as it merely mentions (the only) example of a supersonic jet fighter seaplane in a part of the article describing the need of such design. My intention was to provide a link to for a reader wishing to continue reading more about supersonic jet fighter seaplanes when they were mentioned. Agent L (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I want to go on about you because I believe you're making Wikipedia a place hostile to editors. You're overwhelming my talk page with large amount of material ALL IN CAPS and repeated links to policies - without demonstrating how they were violated. You accuse of "bordering" OR, while was not a single bit of original research in the edit. You ask me to bring references for claims that can't be challenged (Sea Dart being seaplane jet fighter designed for surface ships), the exact opposite of Wikipedia policy. You have displayed bad faith by refusing to apply the rules you're bringing up to edits other than mine - even after I explicitly requested you to do so twice. I am asking you to re-read the last part of Submarine aircraft carrier#Future designs without and with my contribution and reevaluate which version is less backed up. Agent L (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You cannot include the Sea Dart in the Submarine aircraft carrier article. Why? It's true it doesn't fit the letter of WP:OR, first off you do have to cite the fact it was a seaplane jet fighter designed for surface ships for the article to ever go beyond C-class. And secondly, stating that as the Sea Dart was designed for operation for surface ships and would therefore be suitable for a submarine aircraft carrier is textbook WP:SYNTH. The Sea Dart was not designed, nor was it ever considered for, operation from submersible carriers - implying that it is so is synth and that is not acceptable in Wikipedia's articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Your understanding of my edit proves I worded it wrong. What I wanted to convey is that it was not readily applicable to submarines because it was meant for surface ships. Indeed it looks like synth. However, Sea Dart was in fact considered for submarine use. Nothing beyond consideration, but submarine was the problem. About citing what Sea Dart was: B-class criteria also requires references only for controversial material. I believe that mentioning the Sea Dart as the only example of jet fighter seaplane is necessary in this article to "reasonably cover the topic" of using jet fighter seaplanes, a B-class criterion (as there is no article about modern military seaplanes which would be much better). Still, the original article calls to just "modify jet fighters into seaplanes", a seemingly unbacked original idea. Agent L (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)