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)
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)
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)
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)
Can we have a link to the report where this was decided? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:17, 8 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)
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 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
But it has been claimed that->
Neverthelessin diff 2, and then when 72bikers changes it to
However media commentators have suggested that( Diff) your "reverting" it back to
Neverthelessin 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)
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 an account of yours? If so please declare it. [ [12]] Springee ( talk) 01:08, 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 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)
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Temperature&diff=843761169&oldid=843482405 JohnthePilot ( talk) 09:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, 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)
Why have you reverted my change on Big Bang? Szymioza ( talk) 19:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Elitematterman has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
You deserv a treat for the work you have done!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Elitematterman has eaten your {{ subst:cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they feel a little ashamed for eating it! Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{ subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{ subst:munch}}!
![]() |
Cookies! | |
104.177.49.8 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
104.177.49.8 ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can we have a link to the report where this was decided? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:17, 8 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)
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 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
But it has been claimed that->
Neverthelessin diff 2, and then when 72bikers changes it to
However media commentators have suggested that( Diff) your "reverting" it back to
Neverthelessin 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)
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 an account of yours? If so please declare it. [ [12]] Springee ( talk) 01:08, 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 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)
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Temperature&diff=843761169&oldid=843482405 JohnthePilot ( talk) 09:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, 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)
Why have you reverted my change on Big Bang? Szymioza ( talk) 19:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 22:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Elitematterman has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
You deserv a treat for the work you have done!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Elitematterman has eaten your {{ subst:cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they feel a little ashamed for eating it! Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{ subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{ subst:munch}}!
![]() |
Cookies! | |
104.177.49.8 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
104.177.49.8 ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)