User talk:Waleswatcher

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

June 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Dicklyon. I noticed that you recently removed content from Theory of tides without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Your talk page was blank, so I didn't realize that you're "a regular". Nonetheless, an explanation of the problem on the talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Dicklyon, among other problems with that reference is this statement: "To move the tidal wave around the earth within one day would require the movement of enormous amounts of water with the speed of modern aircraft and is physically simply not possible. This was recognized by Laplace in 1775 when he developed the dynamic theory of tides." That is badly wrong for several reasons. First, tidal waves do not move enormous quantities of water. It's the wave that moves, not a large mass of water - the water just moves up and down, rather slowly because the wavelength is long. Second, it is not at all impossible. In fact, Laplace's theory agrees with Newton that without continents there would in fact be tidal waves that circle the earth roughly once/day. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I agree that's quite wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please make sure your edit summaries are accurate[edit]

This edit summary is incorrect [[1]] You were involved in the discussion so to claim it was "unexplained" is very questionable. Springee (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It was unexplained because you didn't explain the justification for it. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It was explained and justified. I'm sorry you are unable to understand WP:RS. Springee (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
WW why edit war? If you truly do not understand WP:RS policy take it to the noticeboard. -72bikers (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Work (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Unneeded warnings[edit]

Waleswatcher, per Slatersteven's request I'm going to reply to these comments [[2]] here. 72bikers has asked you to not post on their talk page. The only exception to such a request are required notices such as those required when you file an ANI against an editor. Warning such as the one you made about an incorrectly marked "minor" edit are not required and thus violate your talk page prohibition. Springee (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Springee, that's incorrect - those are not the only "exceptions". (Also, why is this your concern at all?) Waleswatcher (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No he is not incorrect, you are misinformed. Policy does support this request that a admin suggested. Warning such as the one you made about an incorrectly marked "minor" edit are not required and thus violate your talk page prohibition. I will once again ask politely do not post on my talk page. You have not shown the ability to discern what a legitimate reason would be, is the reason for said request. -72bikers (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
72bikers, here's a quote from the ANI on your talk page issues: "If you have a legitimate warning about 72bikers's conduct, you may post a warning once." That's precisely what I did, and that's what I will continue to do. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Bbb23, as the admin who closed the ANI mentioned in this discussion, would you please weight in on the question of the legitimacy of the warning in question? Springee (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the report where this was decided?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The only report I'm aware of is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#72bikers_talk_page_issues this discussion at ANI, which allows "banned" editors to post one warning per incident. We are seeing a worrying trend of editors labeling warnings as "unneeded", "illegitimate" and "harassment" as a way to deflect warnings. –dlthewave 17:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
That was my impression, so I assumed there was another.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Why don't you all leave 72biker alone for a while? The impression I get, looking from the sideline, is that of a number of editors banding together to harass an "opponent", in order to get them to leave or out of frustration respond in a way that gets them blocked. That's not how we are supposed to do things here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I would have no problem leaving him alone if he was not so keen to issue warnings (in fact it was his demand I revert or get banned that let to this latest flare up) himself in the wrong places. What we are supposed to do, let him do as he likes, make whatever edits he likes (including breaches of talk page guidelines, when he is so keen to enforce ones that do not exist)?Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Well someone sure has a bee in there bonnet. My skin is too thick to be bothered by baseless warnings that neither carry any weight or legitimacy. Thomas.W hit the nail on the head of what is clear to all watching. They are clearly a effort to poke the bear. Besides a admin telling all this is what they advised, two policies have also been shown. You can lead a horse to water but …. There behavior shows a lack of character, civility and does nothing to enhance a environment conducive to improving articles. -72bikers (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
If you mean I do not like warnings being issued on article talk pages that amount to "give me what I want or I will report you". Yes I do have a bee in my bonnet (It is against the rules, and you need to understand that, article talk pages are for discussion of the article, not other users). I did not attempt to poke you at any point. You made what I viewed as an unacceptable edit and reverted (and even one of your supporters admits my interpretation of it may not have been that unreasonable), it was you who decided to throw around threats of admin intervention. Now if you wanted to be left alone you could have
Said OK lets discus why you think my edit is wrong, I will not insist you revert.
Posted the warning in the right place.
Not doing what you are still doing, saying "I am right and you are wrong". At no point have you shown that you understand that your interpretation of at least some of our polices are way of the mark (or come to that admin actions, as it is clear the ANI said "cannot post warnings more then once", not "cannot post warnings"). If you carry on with a battleground, wikilaywering (well its not "Technically the body") mentality in controversial and contentious topic areas (when at least in part you do not in fact understand policy) you are not only not going to be left alone, you will find yourself increasingly fighting this kind of fight. You will end up with a block, if for no other reason then breaches of wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
And all rules of course also apply to you, so if you continue to push POV, obstruct any and all attempts to make articles adhere to WP:NPOV, and harass other users, you're likely to get blocked too. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course they do, hence the ANI, which of us is correct that his addition of disputed text within a cite was not a minor edit and was in fact POV pushing by the back door. I have not asked for him to be blocked, only to be told (for example) that his edit was dubious and should not have been marked as minor, am I incorrect? Are you going to tell me that his view that the proper place to discus his (or other users) actions is in fact article talk pages? As you seem to think that this constitutes harassment I will not reply here again.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Is the pot calling the kettle black? Does he really believe what he is saying? Cheers -72bikers (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


When you recently reverted AR-15 style rifle, you said in the summary you were "Restoring consensus version". Got a link to that? Moriori (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I suppose this, or at least it's the one that was protected. Not quite what I restored, but fairly close. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a violation of the discretionary sanctions placed on the article. It is a violation of the clause "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" (emphasis mine). The definition of a revert is available at WP:REVERT, though the relevant passage is undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits. This includes removing, without reverting, previously made edits (72bikers edit does revert an edit, but there may be a statute of limitations problem). Second, waiting a period of 26 hours (previous revert) to perform the revert will not exempt you from an edit-warring block. Please refer to WP:Edit-warring for a detailed explanation, with particular focus to the following: Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. As 1RR is enforced on the page, you can change the word "fourth" with the word "second". On a separate note, but related directly to the above, Moriori I r will be sending you an e-mail regarding this question. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

One of us has this entirely backwards. As far as I can see, 72bikers edited the page and removed material that had been in the article at least since it was protected in early June. I challenged and reverted that edit. Thomas.W restored it, which violates the remedies since there was no consensus for 72biker's change. I undid that when they refused to do so, and now Mr rnddude, you again restored the edit, violating the remedies, all the while accusing me of various nefarious misdeeds. What am I missing here? (It's true that I'm on a phone with very poor internet, so possibly I'm missing something...) Waleswatcher (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The local consensus is that only WW objected to the removal and there is clearly a consensus that the reversion was not done with valid justification. After the talk page discussion on Thomas.W's talk page the consensus against WW's edit should have been clear. Springee (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow! What a very fast consensus that was. Too bad none of the editors that might not agree had a chance to even comment. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Have you managed to find a link to the consensus for your revert that you claimed existed in your edit summary? Or did you just make it up? If so, it could very well come back to haunt you in the future... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the big box of text at the top of the talk page? It's not so much a consensus version as a version that consensus is required to change, once a change has been challenged. As for "haunt me" - so dramatic! Waleswatcher (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • The edit of yours that I reverted had the edit summary "I do not agree with that removal, Restoring consensus version", which seems to be a totally false claim, sice there apparently doesn't exist any such consensus. Making your edit a prime example of gaming the system, and one of many examples of your tendentious editing. And, to quote the page on tendentious editing: "Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they may be banned from certain articles or topics or become subject to probation.". - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I ask again - did you read that text? Once an edit has been challenged by reversion - as 72biker's was, by me - it cannot be reinstated unless there is consensus on the talk page to do so. That puts both you and User:Mr rnddude in violation, doesn't it? And yet, you both refuse to self-revert. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

72biker challenged the content, and you reverting his challenge without consensus. Afootpluto (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, which is perfectly ok. That content has been in the article for months. Do you dispute that? Did you read the notice at the top of the talk page? Waleswatcher (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

WW, four editors have shown support for the removal and have offered reasons why. This is now the third time you have restored the material. You might claim the first restoration was per DS but the second and third clearly are not. Please self revert before this ends up at wp:ae. Springee (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at AR-15 style rifle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule— should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Making repeated reverts outside the "time window", such as reverting every ~26 h on an article with 1 revert per 24 h allowed, counts as both edit-warring and gamig the system. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You are now at 4 restorations of the same material. That is a slow edit war. Please revert or this will end up at WP:3RR or WP:AE. Springee (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Unanswered question[edit]

Will you please reply to the question of why you removed content from the AR-15 article. It has been 10 days with no legitimate reason given. The sources and experts have been already accepted and in the article. The quotes just provide the readers with context of who the experts are. -72bikers (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Long since answered. Also, this belongs on the article talk page. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tried there more than once and you yet again still fail to explain your action. Are you aware of how this is being perceived? What's that old adage about sticking head in sand? -72bikers (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually this is starting to look like a behavior thing more than a content thing!-72bikers (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration Enforcement#Waleswatcher[edit]

I gave you an only warning a few days ago. Several other editors also gave you warnings. You chose not to heed those and plowed straight on. I have requested arbitration. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thank you.Waleswatcher (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

[3] Yes it's possible, but I'm not going to boomerang anybody. There seemed to be more people supporting removal on the talk page than not. ~Awilley (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Mass shootings in the United States‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -72bikers (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


I'm going to move this discussion to your talk page. Please review WP:HOUND.

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.

Defending another editor is not hounding your work unless your work is specifically to target said editor. If you truly feel I've been hounding you, you are welcome to bring it to ANI. Springee (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

And the next paragraph:
Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.
That suspicion has been raised, repeatedly, and I will bring it to ANI if it continues. You are obviously tracking my edits, and, while I can't read your mind, "revenge for a perceived slight" certainly doesn't sound farfetched, does it? Just stop, let it go. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, "look at the confront or inhibit their work" text. If you can point to where I've gone to some new article that isn't in an area I've already been editing in to inhibit your work, lets got to ANI. Adding my own comments to administrative pages about editors whom we are both involved with is not likely to be seen as hounding. Springee (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • While we're on the topic: 72bikers has asked you a few times not to post on their talk page; you must honor that request, with the exception of such things as noticeboard notifications. Please stop: I will not hesitate to block you if you don't abide. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, block me on what grounds? I thought this is what talk pages were for. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Huh? They asked you not to post on their talk page, so you are not to post on their talk page. Posting on their talk page when they asked you not to post on their talk page is considered harassment. (Note I have no opinion on your or their comments--that's not the point.) Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, maybe you aren't aware of it, but there was an ANI regarding 72bikers' talk page issues. Here's the conclusion:
If you have a legitimate warning about 72bikers's conduct, you may post a warning once. 72's removal of the warning or even a comment on the warning that asks you not to post should be respected. If the behavior that triggered the warning repeats and escalated warnings are justified, go ahead (has to be a new incident of the same conduct). No commentary should be added once 72 has asked you to stay away. If the supposed misconduct becomes sufficiently serious, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard. We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The warning I posted seems to me to conform to that - the edit summary was misleading, probably deliberately so, as 72bikers is fully aware that the change they made is controversial and against consensus. This was a "new incident", so I posted a warning once and then stayed away. How on earth is following that guideline worthy of a block? And if not on their talk page, where am I supposed to ask 72bikers to stop such behavior? Article talk pages aren't really the appropriate place, are they? It has nothing to do with that article, it's about 72bikers behavior. Should I start an ANI report for every single such minor incident? Waleswatcher (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say I was going to block you now, I said I would if you continue. "72's removal of the warning or even a comment on the warning that asks you not to post should be respected" seems pretty clear to me. With "go ahead" I assume Bbb meant "warning templates", but for this, a matter that was indeed discussed on the talk page, I see no reason why you can't post some note on the article talk page, esp. since it's something that concerns all the editors in that discussion and maybe more of them. You don't have to warn them on the article talk page, but you can place a note that says they did this and that and you restored citing community consensus. That isn't too difficult. No, you don't have to start an ANI thread for every incident, but you also don't have to warn them for every incident. Your edit summary was clear enough, IMO. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: the edit was discussed on the talk page. My post [4] "I am not suggesting we remove it but simply clarify." September 1. Reply [5] with no objection to the recent edit. My response [6] "no objections to providing this clarity". I even waited a couple of days and got no objections. I then made the edit [7] stating exactly what I said on the talk page with edit summary "clairify".
Drmies I fail to see his harassing warning of being even remotely legitimate,[8] "misleading edit summaries". This harassing behavior shows no sign of ending, as he has repeatedly claimed he has a right to do this. He clearly could of broached this on the article talk page but he chose to harass me instead. -72bikers (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey--if they can't post on your page, it seems fair that you don't post extensive comments here. This editorial dispute should be had on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
He has not asked me to not post here. As to the post it was only meant for you to have all of the facts. At this point I feel like a noticeboard would be the best way to address this behavior as it shows no sign of stopping. But Drmies I appreciate you finding the time to address this behavior. Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
72bikers, if you want to take this to a noticeboard, please go ahead. FYI I don't mind if you post here, in my view that's the whole point of user talk pages (to avoid cluttering article talk pages with disputes about behavior). In fact for that same reason I don't believe that any user has the right to blanket forbid another user from posting on their talk page, and I'll continue to abide by the ANI decision I quoted above. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

At this point I think either take it to a notice board or shut up. WW has made it clear what he will do so the ball is now in 72bikers court. Either back up threats or stop making them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


Remember AR-15 style rifle is under DS restrictions, please be more careful.Slatersteven (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, thanks, but I don't know what you're referring to. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
This was a revert [[9]], [[10]] might be seen as a partial revert as it undoes the work of other eds. I am not saying you did violate 1 RR but it can look that way. We are all sailing a bit close to the wind , and that makes it far to easy to slip up.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I disagree - I don't see how your second diff is a revert by any standard. But again, I appreciate the concern. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The diffs are in reverse order. I believe Steven is referring to But it has been claimed that -> Nevertheless in diff 2, and then when 72bikers changes it to However media commentators have suggested that(Diff) your "reverting" it back to Nevertheless in diff 1. Assuming there's a talk page consensus for it (I'm not going to search for it), then you're exempt from 1RR for that revert. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


Rather than spinning your wheels suggesting we include the opinions of reporters, why don't you just find some articles where experts are interviewed and the experts explain why mass shooters pick certain firearms vs others? 72bikers did that and hence why we included that material. I'm just about certain you are right in thinking that other experts would disagree and at some point, lost in all the electronic ink spilled in this discussion, I said as much to someone. I think it reads a bit odd to just have one opinion shared by just two experts. However, no one has presented other sources to balance the ones we have. If you find those sources then we should include them. I certainly have had issues with your edits in the past but I'm not opposing you here because I don't want other views. I'm only opposing because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and this is a case where we would need experts to speak to what was in the head of the shooter when selecting a weapon. Springee (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Several of the sources I added were written by experts, others were reliable secondary sources reporting on these events and the opinions of others. All of them were RS. Trying to find more sources that meet your idiosyncratic definition of "expert" is a waste of my time, and not how wikipedia works. So, no thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't recall you showing that but you are welcome to explain why you think the sources were experts in why mass shooters pick certain firearms. If you can make that case I would support including the material. Springee (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please propose additions such as this before adding them to the article [[11]]. Slowing down and discussing your changes first is the best way to avoid an antagonistic editing environment. I know we haven't been seeing eye to eye here but discussing first will go a long way to smoothing things out. Springee (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this you?[edit]

Is this an account of yours? If so please declare it. [[12]] Springee (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Does look weird though, doesn't it... that's the user's only edit. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


You may have breached 1rr over at AR-15.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

When... where.... how? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I said may, There has been a lot of too and froing over the last couple of days, and edit warring does not just have to have been over a 24 hour period. Just a warning to be careful.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

I undid your edit changing "misidentified" to "identified". Both sources cited say that the firearm was incorrectly identified as an AR-15. Source 1: However, it turns out the Islamic State-supporting killer didn't actually use an AR-15 to carry out the insidious at a gay nightclub that left 49 people dead and dozens more injured. The terrorist was actually armed with a Sig Sauer MCX carbine. Source 2: On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle. Just leaving a longer note clarifying. I keep forgetting that edit summaries have been extended to 1000 characters, otherwise I'd have put this in there as well. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverted, see my edit summary. Let's continue the discussion on the talk page (if you disagree). By the way your change also reverted my correction of the grammar error (rifles vs rifle). Waleswatcher (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Please point me to the talk page consensus for your edit or kindly self-revert. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
There was no talk page consensus for any specific edit.Waleswatcher (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be. You are required to seek consensus when you make an edit that is challenged. You do not need a consensus to make an edit. If you're challenging the material as added, than do so (by removing it, not by changing it to suit your preference). If not, then don't. What you can't do is not challenge the material, change it, and then reinstate your preferred version when your change is challenged. I have challenged, directly and explicitly, your change to the material as it misrepresents what is stated by both sources. Now please, self revert. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Give me two minutes to triple check. If I'm wrong, I'll retract and apologize. If not, then I'll let you know. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's an extremely literal interpretation of the sanctions. You really want me to revert Springee's entire edit, which I and almost everyone agrees is an improvement apart from some minor word choice, rather than find a compromise on the wording? Waleswatcher (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
So you support Springee's edit? That's fine. I don't support your changes to Springee's edit and have challenged it directly and explicitly. Yeah, if we're following the DS you can either wholesale remove it till we get the wording down (highly bureaucratic option), self-revert and go back to the currently unchallenged version (high ground option), or I can give you a pass and let the talk page discussion determine which version is better ("it'll sort itself" out option). I'll be generous and take the "it'll sort itself out" option. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, thank you so much for your kind generosity in allowing editors to reach consensus on the talk page. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It was either "let it go" or WP:AE. You really don't leave many options. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"Coldest" v "Lowest"[edit]

You said you had searched the edits and couldn't find where Chjoaygame had replaced the disputed text with an agreed version. This is the edit in question: (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That still says absolute zero is the coldest. The problem I have is with the word "lowest", which is not correct. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
That is why Chjoaygame changed the text so that neither lowest or coldest was used. I still stand by my original statement that temperature cannot be hot or cold, only high or low; it is a measurement and measurements don't have a temperature.JohnthePilot (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Chjoaygame's edit (the one you linked to just above) changed the language to "A body at temperature absolute zero is the coldest possible" (my bold). Waleswatcher (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
That's right. An object can be cold but its temperature is low. What don't you understand?JohnthePilot (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

1RR possible violation[edit]

WW, I think this is a 1RR violation [[13]]. Not because of the 24hr limit but because it's the second time you have made the change and thus far consensus doesn't support the 6 of 10. I would ask that you self revert until we have a consensus. Springee (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

6/10 is the long standing language, as you very well know - you yourself wrote "OK, I've changed the text back to 5 and added the footnote regrading the MCX vs AR-15. I hope this works for all. If not please revert and we can discuss further." So it's hard to interpret your comment above in good faith. Care to clarify? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You are the only editor who insists on the 6 of 10 text. The others are OK with either or reject 6 of 10. Between that and the possible 1RR violation it would be a good show of good faith to restore and wait for things to work out. Springee (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming there is consensus for your change on the talk page? Also, your failure to explain your comment above is noted. As for me being the only editor, that's false - Slatersteven a few days ago wrote "I agree if we are using the source we should say what the source says" and "We go with what the source says, or we do not use it." Waleswatcher (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. You are the only editor who specifically is not OK with the change. Several support it and several are OK with either. Springee (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away. Your comments make it clear you're not interested in discussing this, so this will be my last response to you on the topic. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Sadly I think the accusation of ignoring facts can point in your direction as well. After all you have tried to claim that an article that specifically says the MCX isn't an AR-15 actually is actually arguing the reverse. Springee (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Military style[edit]

In this edit where are you getting the phrase military style from? I can't find it in any of the associated sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If it's not in the sources I don't have a problem removing it (although I'm pretty sure it is in plenty of sources, if not the ones in there now). I reverted the edit because the edit summary wasn't logical, and it was an IP so talk page discussion probably wouldn't have been fruitful. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope WW doesn't mind if I chime in. The IP editor removed two instances of "military style". I checked the first one and the source did say "military style". I didn't verify the second. I think WW's reversion was good in this case even though it did turn out the second example wasn't supported by the 6 of 10 sources. Springee (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Haw haw. OK, just checking. If I missed it, well, I'v had a lot on my mind today. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Refactoring discussion at AR-15 style rifle[edit]

As people are !voting on your suggestion as a proposal distinct from the other two we've refactored the discussion to make it clearer to editors what's being proposed as wording and who's saying what. This has, however, split one of your comments as people subsequently !voted on proposal 2, and the half of your comment that has your signature line is now proposal 3 under a different sub-heading. I pinged you on the page, but I also wanted to reach out to you here so you could make sure your own comments were signed and ordered to your satisfaction. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for doing that. It was quite confusing! Waleswatcher (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

sick and tired[edit]

If you are sick and tired of not getting your way then maybe move on to other topics. I resent the implication of your statement and ask to to reconsider it. They are a breach of wp:npa and wp:AGF, and can lead to blocks.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reconsider it"? It's the truth. It's not a personal attack, I haven't mentioned any specific individuals (there are in fact several with a clear pattern of obstructive behavior - 72bikers comes to mind - but you're not one of them). As for AGF, I think most involved editors are acting in good faith as they see it. Finally re blocks, I don't think I breached any standard of behavior, on wiki or anywhere else. Strongly-held opinions are not a sin. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Odd then that 72bikers has not posted in that thread, and I did.Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Do you really think that (I believe that) you are one of the most tendentious editors in that regard? Come on. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea given its tone (and what it was replying to) who you had in mind, nor do I care. If it was not a reply to any comment made on that thread it had no place there in the first place, article talk pages are not for commenting on non participating edds. Thus I assumed that it was a about something said in the thread, as a response to my comment about not soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Waleswatcher. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)