158.181.83.72

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello, I'm Loafiewa. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pacific War, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Loafiewa (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

half the content on the page is unsourced. may i ask what your problem is? we can work together on this. which part don't you agree with? 158.181.83.72 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of events, such as calling something a "resounding tactical victory" should always be cited, as otherwise it would fall under WP:Original research, and a lack of sourcing elsewhere in the article does not really change that. If you happen to remember the name of the book/journal you remembered reading about this in, I can try and look it up myself and see if it's got anything that could be added to the article. Loafiewa (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

so just cut the resounding. they didn't get to drop their barrels, so it was not all rainbow and sunshine.

this is not original research. apart from the "resounding" this is just stating what the general consensus is.

even if there is a bit of controversy left on the significance, it is still better to leave that to the next guy to take offense at it. leaving it out makes the article worse. 158.181.83.72 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It is original research if it's not supported by a reliable source. As stated by WP:NOR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Loafiewa (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

considering that the section on naval guadalcanal now sucks, i would advise you to lower your standard here. it's certainly not an egregious misinterpretation of sources and what isn't there can't be improved upon in the future. anyway, i am not going to go on a hunt for sources for this particular edit. 158.181.83.72 (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to United States Navy in World War II. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions.
Note: Please also ensure that any content you add is relevant and encyclopaedic as well. Thank you - wolf 14:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

assuming everything was sourced, which part would still be irrelevant? 158.181.83.72 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

why don't you answer the question? 158.181.83.72 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

hello? you removed something that took me at least an hour to assemble and you can't take 1 minute out of your busy day to answer a simple question? a question about what you personally would find desirable for the article in question.

interesting. 158.181.83.72 (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please add sources

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(ˈ[d̥͡soːg̊ʰ] – [ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s])} 20:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

sure. what unsourced information did i add? 158.181.83.72 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Many places, including here. Only one source to one statement. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(ˈ[d̥͡soːg̊ʰ] – [ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s])} 22:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

http://shipbuildinghistory.com/shipyards/large/toddtacoma.htm is right there in the references.

it includes the sentence "Todd bought property for a construction yard in Tacoma's Commencement Bay in 1917."

shipbuildinghistory.com is considered pretty reliable as far as i can tell.

or did you mean another piece of information? 158.181.83.72 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. All claims need sources. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(ˈ[d̥͡soːg̊ʰ] – [ˈg̊ʰɒ̹nd̥͡sɹ̠ɪb̥s])} 22:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

which claim has no source? 158.181.83.72 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Accounts

It appears you are now using 158.181.81.240 (If I'm wrong, I apologize), that being the case, there are notifications and messages there for you regarding your most recent edits. I would suggest you use that user talk page now to communicate and I would also strongly encourage you to create an account. Thank you - wolf 17:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

---