User talk:IndyCar1020
Welcome![edit]
Hi IndyCar1020! I noticed your contributions to Machine code and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Mucube (talk · contribs) 20:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
June 2023[edit]
Your recent editing history at Ada Lovelace shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Felida97 (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm the one that included a peer reviewed IEEE reference that states the current opening paragraph as it was before (and now is, again) is wrong. Why are you doing this? IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Independent of this specific situation, I just want to note that edit warring is edit warring, even if you're right. "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." (see WP:EW). Felida97 (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not an experienced editor at Wikipedia. However, I will be surprised if there are no limitations to the notion of when something is "edit warring".
- My memory isn't what it used to be, but what I believe happened is that someone removed the cited literature. Again, I'm not an expert in the internal rules of Wikipedia, but common sense dictates that: I would strongly suspect that removing peer reviewed research, which is of a more recent nature than the existing literature cited, is a form of vandalism.
- The way this should work, again according to common sense, is as follows:
- We're basically writing a survey paper in academic terms, but one where we're not allowed to make any original research, make statements, or other original contributions beyond simply summarizing the existing literature.
- I present my findings, i.e. I cite the literature I deem to be the latest, then someone else is welcome to find other research that refutes this. In that case, both citations should remain.
- In this case, when there is a breakthrough, from a highly regarded figure, with no serious challenges to oppose it, then it would be unfair to simply state that this is "yet another opinion". The line has to be drawn at some point, and in lack of any other literature to cite, then this is clearly such a case. IndyCar1020 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Independent of this specific situation, I just want to note that edit warring is edit warring, even if you're right. "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." (see WP:EW). Felida97 (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:IndyCar1020 reported by User:Wretchskull (Result: ). Thank you. Wretchskull (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- One week? Just go ahead and ban me completely to demonstrate that you are correct regarding Ada Lovelace. Just ban me, and everyone else that comes in your way in the future.
- I had a suspicion that the Wikipedia community was this flawed before I started editing. This confirms all of my fears.
- I will refer to this course of events whenever anyone discusses Wikipedia ever again in my presence, to point out how flawed it is. IndyCar1020 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
July 2023[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
IndyCar1020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe that for certain politically loaded cases, the system of resolving a dispute has serious challenges. Simply resolving it with a majority might not always be accurate. There are certain cases, such as the dispute with Ada Lovelace being the first programmer or not that are too sensitive to have people actually evaluate the literature to make up their minds. In my experience engaging with the other contributors, they ignore cited literature and simply revert them. In particular, when I cite three sources with more recent research (even using humble phrasing, such as "this suggests that"), this is instantly removed. I find this to be vandalism, and not constructive. When I try to fight back, I'm told I'm the one edit warring, and I feel that their superior knowledge of Wikipedia's own rules are being used against me when I'm acting in good faith. I'm trying to set the record straight. IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That you are trying to "fight back" is itself the problem. Wikipedia isn't a competition, it's collaborative. It's good that you are using the talk page to attempt to gain consensus for your desired changes. In the absence of such consensus, you should stop attempting to insert the contested material. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong -- the edit warring itself is disruptive, and is why you are blocked. Content disputes are not vandalism. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
IndyCar1020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As far as I can tell, my latest contribution to the Ada Lovelace article was an addition which included three references. This was removed without explanation, and I undid this vandalism. This happened twice on my part. One edit to make the contribution, and two reverts of vandalism. Even if you disagree that this was not vandalism by the other user, I don't believe I violated the 3RR line. A more constructive course of action would be for the other users to edit my contribution if they didn't appreciate the phrasing (which although was already quite humble, I might add), instead of just blanket undo any edit I would make, and invoke a requirement for consensus. Wikipedia should practice what it preaches. If the majority of users gang up on all new users and just require a consensus for any new addition, even additions that come in the form of a couple sentences and backed by three references, one article and two scientific papers, then that appears to me hostile and unproductive. The small group of people that "protect" the Ada Lovelace article refuse to evaluate new information, even peer reviewed scientific literature, they attack trivialities and use the Wikipedia system to enforce their will. I can only assume they are emotionally invested in the article and/or protect it for political reasons.
Decline reason:
This block isn't about whether or not the sources you used were appropriate. It's about edit-warring. You can't continually revert in your preferred content no matter how "right" you think it was. And content disputes aren't considered vandalism. You will not be unblocked until you understand that the way you went about this content dispute is incorrect. Content disputes get resolved on article talk pages or in Dispute resolution discussions, it's not based on who reverted last. And this is true for every page in this project, not just in this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- As long as you fail to understand that content disputes are not vandalism, you're not going to get far with these requests or with the changes you want made. You're not blocked for violating WP:3RR, you're blocked for edit warring. And that's all. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 05:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Abuse of reverts and consensus requirements[edit]
IndyCar1020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I didn't continually revert the same contribution. I made various different contributions, and should also mention I kept adding sources. My contributions were sometimes reverted because the exact sentence I used to describe the cited source wasn't found in the source, even though the findings as described were the same. When this happened, I encouraged the other user to rephrase my text instead of just outright removing it.
Content disputes are vandalism if they are not done in good faith. Simply removing a contribution with three references without a valid explanation appears to me as vandalism.
Is there a limitation on using (abusing) the notion of requiring consensus? Can a Wikipedia user revert all contributions, and require a consensus for all of them, without any further justification? If there is such a limit, I would encourage you to look into the conduct of the other users involved in the Ada Lovelace article. Not only do they abuse this mechanism, but they behave in an extremely arrogant and elitist manner. By that, I mean they do not evaluate peer-reviewed literature or any other literature, they simply outright remove it, demand consensus, then invoke edit warring. And finally, if anyone dares stand up to this, they have the user banned.
I don't see how this is collaborative or productive. Again, I see this as a small group of people that are well established, very protective of "their" article, believe very strongly in their personal view, and will simply crush anyone that stands up to them.
Again, this is abuse of these mechanisms. These mechanisms are surely not intended to just enforce your own will under the guise of "preventing" (actually starting!) edit warring.
I would also encourage you to enact a similar block on the other users involved. Why I'm the only one singled out, seems arbitrary and cruel. If we assume that I've met some requirement of edit warring, then the enforcement of the rules must be fair and consistent for all users: Why don't you also block the other users, which demonstrated just as little intent of stopping? Perhaps you personally agree with the supposed fact that Ada Lovelace is the first programmer?
And as for this: "As long as you fail to understand that content disputes are not vandalism": Dear jpgordon, you have to understand, that these are not content disputes, they are vandalism because of the very fact that the other users involved do not evaluate the content. They do not read the literature, they just remove it. They are dead set on making Ada Lovelace the first programmer, they invoke their personal credentials, such as what university they are from, and they blatantly ignore any peer-reviewed evidence that contradicts their personal opinion. A content dispute might look at follows as part of a revert comment: "I've looked over your cited references, and they do not support the claim that you wrote", if that was true (and it has to be true, not just made up to win the argument), that would be a productive and genuine content dispute. That's not what's happening here. If you were to read the history of the edits actually made and see how uncooperative they are on the talk page, you should arrive at the same conclusion. Although, I'm sure you're not going to do that. IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't think that this collaborative project is the place for you. You clearly do not understand our policies and seem to have little interest in doing so. Also see WP:NOTTHEM. I doubt you are going to find an admin willing to lift this block before it expires without some significant change in attitude and understanding here. If this continues after the block expires, the next one will be much longer. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
On the virtues of modesty and docility[edit]
IndyCar1020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
331dot: Hark, noble Ministry of Truth, I doth vow to bear thy words within mine heart. Verily, I shall retain the knowledge to seeketh permission upon the Talk Page ere I dare to alter, lest I disturb the leftward-leaning zealots who guardeth the sanctified chronicles of the Ada Lovelace. Forsooth, she, the fair maiden, is acclaimed as the pioneer among all programmers that hath dwelt on this mortal realm, and it is of utmost import to maintain this verity. Henceforth, with vigilance, I shall safeguard and champion not only this sacred truth, but also supplicate humbly and meekly for pardon ere I venture to make any edit. I, a lowly soul, doth humbly perceive the blemishes that mar my deeds. I shall embark on a path of penance, striving to vanquish this hubris and embrace humility in all its aspects. Aye, I shall become meek, submissive, and reverent, bowing afore the virtues of modesty and docility. With utmost respect, I remain ever thine servant, IndyCar1020, 12.07.1984.
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
July 2023[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)- I make contributions. Why do you say I'm not here to build an encyclopedia?
- I didn't even write anything on the Ada Lovelace article, instead I started talk points to identify what I've done wrong.
- I also reached out to you to explain myself and ask what I've done wrong.
- Please explain to me why this deserves a permanent block. IndyCar1020 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I make contributions[edit]
I make other contributions. Why do you say I'm not here to build an encyclopedia?
It is unfair to say I only cause trouble.
I didn't even write anything on the Ada Lovelace article, instead I started talk points on the Talk Page to identify what I've done wrong.
I also reached out to you to explain myself and ask what I've done wrong.
I'm sorry for being arrogant. I feel overlooked and offended. I will try to improve if I get another chance. :( IndyCar1020 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'd highly recommend that you read Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia#Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. When editors above say that you are "not here to build an encyclopedia", this essay is what they are referencing. It's not just a negative statement thrown out there that doesn't mean anything. Please read it thoughtfully and carefully, honestly asking yourself which of these points apply to you. If, after reading this, you realize which of these apply to you, see if you can think of ways to not be that way/not do those things. Take your time, and don't be in a hurry. An indefinite block is open-ended, but not necessarily permanent, so you have time to reflect. Wikipedia will still be here, however long the process takes you.
- Afterwards, read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. In particular, consider the point
"that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions insted".
Focus on your own behavior, attitude, and actions, and try to show how you will avoid these problems in the future.
- If you are able to do those things, you will be on the road to coming back. Your next appeal may be declined, but try to learn from the decline statement. You are obviously a smart and intelligent person. I believe you can learn from this, and return to editing Wikipedia as an editor who make positive contributions. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Request for unblock[edit]
IndyCar1020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am writing to appeal the block that has been placed on my account due to past instances of impolite behavior and engaging in editing warring. I understand the reasons for the block and would like to express my sincere willingness to rectify my past conduct and become a more constructive contributor to Wikipedia.
While it is true that I may have been involved in disputes and unproductive behavior in the past, I believe that I have learned from my mistakes. I now fully grasp the importance of collaborative editing and working towards the shared goal of building an informative and reliable encyclopedia.
In the past, my actions may have shown a lack of understanding and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines and principles. However, I assure you that I have taken the time to reflect on my behavior and acknowledge the need for positive change.
My commitment moving forward is to focus on making valuable contributions to Wikipedia by creating well-sourced and unbiased content. I understand that maintaining a neutral point of view is crucial, and I will strive to ensure that all my edits align with this principle.
I am aware that my past behavior may have caused disruption and inconvenience to other editors and the Wikipedia community as a whole. I sincerely apologize for any harm I may have caused and promise to act with greater respect and civility in all my interactions.
I understand that the decision to lift the block lies with the Wikipedia administrators, and I am prepared to accept whatever outcome you deem appropriate. I genuinely hope for the opportunity to prove myself as a valuable member of the Wikipedia community once again.
Thank you for considering my appeal. I look forward to the possibility of being granted another chance to contribute positively to Wikipedia. IndyCar1020 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Using a chatbot to create an unblock request like this doesn't help anything. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@IndyCar1020: You already have an unreviewed block request. Please do not open another while your other one is still pending. Additional requests will not get yours reviewed any faster, nor influence the result. If anything, it just adds to administrator workload and annoyance.
If you have additional comments to make, please just enter them as regular comments and do not use the {{unblock}} template. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
IndyCar1020 (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) I don't see why using a chatbot to state the reasons for being unblocked is a bad thing, I wasn't aware that was against the rules. I'm arrogant and hadn't studied the rules of Wikipedia. I'm more familiar with them now, and I'm sorry for causing problems. Despite that, I think it is unfair to say I'm here to build an encyclopedia as a general statement. I have made other contributions.