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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

That was my impression, so I assumed there was another.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is the pot calling the kettle black? Does he really believe what he is saying? Cheers -72bikers (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually this is starting to look like a behavior thing more than a content thing!-72bikers (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]