User talk:71.135.36.192

February 2021
Hello, I'm User3749. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. User3749 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * Please also do not add unsourced information, see WP:CITE. Thanks. User3749 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:3RR
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Radiant exitance. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. User3749 (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me?! I wasn't "repeatedly reverting or undoing other editor's 'contributions'"... it was Evenminded who repeatedly reverted my contribution... and he only does so because he wants to alter or take out of context any information he can to bolster his kooky hobby theory which states that continual 2LoT violations can cause catastrophic atmospheric warming... except a macroscopic 2LoT violation has never been empirically observed, and 2LoT is even more rigorously observed at the quantum level [1]. Stefan and Boltzmann created their equation q = ε σ (T_h^4 - T_c^4) A_h to take into account real-world objects. σ T^4 is for blackbody objects, which assume emission to a 0 K ambient and an emissivity of 1. How exactly is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation not 'consensus'?

[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3275 71.135.36.192 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. ~ Ase1este t@lkc0ntribs 05:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.