User talk:Waleswatcher

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Drmies, block me on what grounds? I thought this is what talk pages were for. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Remember

Slatersteven, thanks, but I don't know what you're referring to. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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/w/index.php?title=Temperature&diff=843761169&oldid=843482405JohnthePilot (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Why have you reverted my change on Big Bang? Szymioza (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply] Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Elitematterman has given you a cookie! 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}}!

This cookie kinda getting stale so... >.> pls don't be mad

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)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]