User talk:Toes405

March 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm 47.227.95.73. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Surfboard fin, 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. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Surfboard fin. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Surfboard fin, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced my edit to nothing but facts. What else is there? Toes405 (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make another edit to Surfboard fin. I thought it best to run it by you to see if it's OK. I will include a citation to google patents and pic. of the drawings from the patent. The text as it will appear:

Earlier, in 1981 a patent was applied for(granted 1983) for a fin box to Jim Mizell.

an end of sentence citation will follow. Toes405 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the source is good, I am all for your edit. This also is an improvement from your last edit, so it looks fine. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Toes405! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! 47.227.95.73 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 47.227.95.73 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surfboard fins[edit]

I probably should have put this here first, but I'm copying it over from the thread on the IP's talk. patents.google.com is not a secondary source. It would be fine if you included that reference alongside a reliable secondary source that mentions the text that you added, but on its own, it's not significant enough to include the text. Wes sideman (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor said, please stop re-adding that text about the patent. If there's no reliable secondary source that talks about it, it doesn't rise to the level of notability required to include it. Please read WP:DUE and Wikipedia:RSPRIMARY. Wes sideman (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was that in 1981 a patent was applied and grated in 1983. I have linked directly to the United States Patent Office to verify that statement. This meet the requirement of a primary source when specific facts may be taken from primary sources. Toes405 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toes405, please read WP:DUE. Anyone can apply for and be granted a patent; that doesn't make the patent or the person notable enough to warrant a mention in an encyclopedia. If there is even one reliable secondary source that discusses this patent, I could see including it. But there isn't, so I don't. Please don't add that info again unless you have another source. Wes sideman (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per the rules, I don't need another source to prove the fact of the statement I made. Anyone can apply for a patent. But it's not easy to be granted a patent. I can add google patents if necessary, but the rules don't require it. Toes405 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. The material isn't significant enough to be included if there isn't a reliable secondary source discussing it. That's the whole point of WP:DUE. But, since you insist on edit warring over it, and have reverted yet again without bothering to acknowledge WP:DUE, I guess that's the route you're choosing. Wes sideman (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toes405: I've asked multiple times that you please discuss this matter. You've ignored WP:DUE and ignored the attempt to discuss the deficiencies in sourcing. Your replies aren't discussion; they're just "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Wes sideman (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll spell it out for you. I make a statement of fact. I followed that statement of fact with a citation from a primary source that verified that fact. According to Wikipedia's use of primary sources (1) Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia. (2) A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

My statement of fact meets these criteria, therefore making it a proper edit for this page. I will now proceed to Undo you edit. Toes405 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Materialscientist: on this. Wes sideman (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Materialscientist, a fellow scientist, cannot see pings because they've turned off most notifications. :( Tails Wx 13:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tails. I only pinged him because he reverted this user's edit adding virtually the same material, earlier. Not a big deal. Wes sideman (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]