User talk:Waleswatcher/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

In Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful &mdash; there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on Talk pages (ie discussion pages) using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin51 (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

String theory
Could you give a source for this edit? We don't draw our own conclusions about things on Wikipedia, that's called original research or improper synthesis. The testability of string theory is definitely covered by sources, so stick to what they say about it, please. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur and have removed the unsourced information. DKqwerty (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement you're objecting to follows by trivial logic from the one preciding it, there is no synthesis or original research. If string theory is Lorentz invariant (it is, and that's sourced), and nature is shown not to be, string theory is falsified. But anyway I'll add a textbook reference that says exactly that (and more).Waleswatcher (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on sailing faster than the wind
Thank you very much for your comments at Talk:Sailing faster than the wind and for having reverted to a sensible version of the article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Inertial coordinate system
And editor and I are trying to come up with a way to modify the Inertial frame of reference definition. It currently uses a paraphrasing from Landau and Lifshitz similar to suggestions you made on the talkpage. Based on discussion on the talk page I guess people want to simplify it, or at least have a simplier lead in which is then followed by a stricter definition. Anyway, would you mind stopping by and sharing opinions on how to word it? FlyingBob (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 02:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that rule until about an hour ago. In any case, see the talk page for that article. All of my reverts were back to a long and well-established version, and were accompanied by requests to stop edit warring and discuss there instead. At the moment, we are having a fruitful discussion. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Waleswatcher: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 December 2011/String theory.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, bobrayner, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Testing...  Waleswatcher  ( talk )

Scythian languages
Just to note I've removed the material your restored - not your fault, but it is pretty clearly a copyright violation from elsewhere, lacking any full citations and in a citation style inconsistent with the article. It was replaced and I've reverted again because of the copyvio issues. Even if those are settled it isn't verifiable as it stands. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tachyon
I left a response for you.Sumanch (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nexia asx
Blocked as an 8digts sock. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

tachyon reverts
I count 5 recent reverts. That's well above the 3 revert limit. We're objecting to the first couple of sentences, so it might be a good idea to talk about any changes you want first and get some agreement. Bhny (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted twice, actually. As you can see if you look, the other edits aren't reverts, they're constructive edits to other parts of the article. Please discuss on the talk page, and if you want to edit the article, please do so selectively rather than with wholesale reverts. Thanks.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates
I wanted to draw your attention to the possibility of using citation templates to format reference you insert in to articles. Citation templates work sort of like BIBTeX style citations. The main advantage is that it makes it easy to provide and maintain a uniform formatting of references in an article. There are two families of templates one is the other is a set of template called "cite XXX" (e.g.  for journal articles) the syntax for these templates is more or less the same, the difference is mostly in the formatting of their output (and some advanced features).

I hope you find these useful. Happy editing.TR 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 03:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bargmann-Wigner equations?
Hello!

There is no article on the Bargmann-Wigner equations for particles of any spin. I asked the wikiproject physics group some time ago about this but there was no response (admittedly my post was fairly hyperactive and rude, but I've calmed down now).

I plan to cobble together in User:Maschen/Bargmann-Wigner equations a few papers and at least generate some start to the article. However I don't know eneogh QFT, nor have/can find any sources of my own which cite these equations (most books I source on WP are from the uni library).

Your expertise in QFT would be really valuable here. Thanks in advance for any/all help! I'd really appreciate it. Maschen (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Coriolis effect
Thank you for your input, I'm assuming allowance for a brief "general discussion" here on your talk page. I'd like to direct your attention to the animation in the upper right side of the Coriolis effect article. If the upper animation is being viewed from the center of gravity, then the black dot should be showing a slight deflection, and not an absolutely straight line at any non-equitorial position. If you agree with me that this animation is in error, all's good. If you disagree, then I'll chase down the rigid math proof and post it to my sandbox. I'm afraid that we may be stuck with Weather science referencing, not many other disciplines use the effect.

The cause is due to the torque component of the acceleration from gravity at any non-equitorial position, so that when another force is applied, even if it is completely linear, the resultant force on the object will still have this rather small amount of torque. The deflection is the Work done by the torque. As another example, a bullet only experiences the Coriolis effect while in the gun barrel, once the bullet exits the applied force is removed, the bullet flies straight as viewed from the center of gravity. There's an article titled Coriolis field that seems to address your comments about Relativity. There seems to be enough scientific papers concerning the effect in Quantinum Mechanics to create a new article.

If I may be so bold, there has to be a physical reason for the predominance of cyclonic motion. Somehow, optical illusions just doesn't work for me. Watchwolf49z (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Watchwolf49z, I'm going to move this to the talk page of Coriolis effect, so that others can participate. I hope you don't mind my copying your comment there.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, just I think it may be unwise if my Physics is bozo [adorable grin] Watchwolf49z (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell the poets dude... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepton01 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have recently begun mustering an army of poets, for challenging the onerous and repressive Wiki Protocols! We will destroy you! and make Wikipedia a much better place for poets! Lepton01 (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, me again, we've a bit of a problem developing on the Talk:Coriolis effect page and I was hoping you'd have time to look in and see if you can help resolve the dispute. I made some edits to the article that were reverted immediately and labeled as vandalism.  What we have here is an invitation to Edit-War, including ad hominum attacks ... and I'll not play along.  Going forward, I believe that any future edits I make are just going to be reverted; and now I've been designated as a vandal.  Thanx in advance. - Watchwolf49z (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

All these people commenting on Heim. its a catch 22 it's not reviewd because there are no reviews, ets. They other thing How physicist worked at the max planck institut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.215.232 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Radiative equilibirum
Your attention is required, can we remove the "tone" lede of that article? Any suggestions? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiative_equilibrium#Remove_of_tone_notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 07:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

FA review?
Hello,

I noticed that you occasionally edit articles on string theory. Right now, I'm working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status, but I'm having trouble finding people to review the article. I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at it and tell us your thoughts at this page. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban Content Removal
Hi, As far as I know, after a user gets topic-banned, you aren't supposed to revert their edits unless they were not a positive contribution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers, -- TJH2018 talk  21:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have no idea what is supposed to happen in general, but in this case, the contributions were definitely not positive. My one hesitation in these edits is that I am incidentally reverting/removing some edits by editors that actually understand quantum physics. However, at least in most cases those edits were attempts to remediate the damage done by Chjoaygame, so it's probably OK. Personally, I had largely given up editing wikipedia because Chjoaygame made it a Sisyphean task. That most likely remains the case for articles on thermodynamics (and will be until s/he is banned there as well), but at least now I can edit quantum articles in peace.

For context, I am a professor of physics, I've taught courses in quantum mechanics at both the undergrad and PhD level, and I use it every day in my research.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To back Waleswatcher, there is no guideline for not "revert(ing) their edits unless they were not a positive contribution". Even if there was, Chjoaygame's edits were not positive. 'M'&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 13:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Take for example Virtual particle. I read that article for the first time a few months ago. I could instantly sense that "Chj has been here". Sure enough. I had planned myself to restore that article once Chj was gone, but Ww got there before me. YohanN7 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Second law of thermodynamics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reversible process. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

AR-15
I won't revert right away but do keep in mind WP:ONUS. Yes, this isn't new material but a change in presentation. Regardless, you are the editor wanting to make a change. When that change is opposed it's on you to get consensus to make the change. You made the change. I reverted. You didn't take it to the talk page nor rather you reverted again which is the start of an edit war. I would ask that you self revert and move the discussion to the talk page. Springee (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS is about what information to include, not what order sections should be in. This was a minor change that I justified.  By contrast you gave no reason for a revert.  Anyway, I responded to you on the talk page, which is a better place to discuss this than here.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 03:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

thermal energy
(I'm not sure whether it's better to comment on your revert at Heat here or on that article's talk page. If you feel the latter is preferable I'll move it there.)

Regarding your revert explained as ``Also, there is no such thing as "thermal energy"', what name do you prefer for the form of energy governed by the equipartition theorem? Or are you claiming there is no such form of energy?

Concerning ``collisions can and do constitute heat transfer," the precise wording of my explanation was `Without "thermal" the definition would include transfer of kinetic energy when a hot solid object collides with a stationary cold one".' How does the transfer of macroscopic kinetic energy from one solid object to another constitute "heat transfer"? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "what name do you prefer for the form of energy governed by the equipartition theorem? Or are you claiming there is no such form of energy?"   There is no such form of energy.  The equipartition theorem fails for the real world, because of quantum mechanics, phase transitions, etc.  More importantly, you are engaging in original research, which has no place on wikipedia.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 02:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Alert
Please note that discretionary sanctions apply to the Ar-15 style rifle page. Springee (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page
As I have already ask you nicely, please keep all comment to article talk pages. You can be sanction for violating this request. I will let this one slide, but if you violate this again I will bring it to the attention of the admins on a noticeboard. Thank you. -72bikers (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything problematic about the warnings Waleswatcher has left on your talk page. User talk, not article talk, is the appropriate place to address and document user behavior. His words regarding "stealth edits" make a valid point about your individual actions which would be disruptive to bring up at article talk. It seems that you've had issues with several uses making unwanted edits to your talk page so please do bring it to the appropriate noticeboard if you believe these edits are inappropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 14:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 72bikers, as far as I know you are always free to delete any comments you don't want from your talk page. But the point of user talk pages is to ensure you see the message (as opposed to article talk pages where you might not).


 * As you know, you started this - you posted a "welcome to wikipedia" template on my talk page. As I am obviously not new to wikipedia I interpreted that as harassment over our disagreements, and warned you about it.  Then, when you removed a key word without comment from the AR-15 style rifle article, I asked you not to "stealth edit".  Both of those comments properly belong on your talk page.


 * With that said, out of courtesy I will not post anything other than necessary warnings or other templates on your talk page in the future.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 03:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

ANi notice
I've indirectly mentioned you at ANi so here is the notification. Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Bad edits
WW, above you noted that posted a new editor comment to your talk page. Edits such as the two you restored to the Colt AR-15 page and the AR-15 style rifle page suggest such a notice was needed. The Colt AR-15 page is about a specific rifle only. The information you added was about the generic Ar-15 pattern rifles hence why we have the two pages. The material you added to the AR-15 style page was clearly against consensus (which currently supports removing "many"). Sure, you can claim you were being BOLD when you added the material the fist time but it's been reverted so an experienced editor should see this as time to go into the discuss part of the BRD cycle. Such reversions don't come across as edits in good faith. Springee (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit to Colt AR-15 was to the section about AR-15 style rifles, which you apparently failed to notice. "The material you added to the AR-15 style page was clearly against consensus (which currently supports removing "many")" - that is false, there is quite clearly no such consensus.  While I am trying to assume good faith on your part, it is becoming more and more clear that you are a POV pusher on these topics.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 11:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't POV pusher apply to your own edits? I agree we have different POVs on the subject but that isn't an issue so long as we edit in good faith, for example following BRD. Springee (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I do not distort and attempt to twist policy to suit my purposes. For example, you removed "many" without consensus, and now falsely claim there is a consensus for removal.  Another example is that all of your objections to "many" were addressed by my recent edit, and yet you removed that too.
 * For another, I quite honestly do not have a strong feeling about gun control - I just believe that most (or at least many) readers of these articles are there because of the shootings, and that that is critically important information for these articles.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 11:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a very subjective statement. -72bikers (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but it could be made rather objective. For instance, evidently the traffic to both the Colt AR-15 and the AR-15 style rifle articles spiked by an enormous factor over its typical value after mass shootings. I do not think that was a coincidence.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war
You are close to breaching 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I appreciate the warning. I've reverted the page only twice in the last 24 hours.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * / I make that 3.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first one is a new edit - does that count as a revert? In any case, I won't revert again (for now).   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say borderline, it depends on how arsey an admin wants to get. Whilst you added material you did also undo another users edits. AS such it might be viewed as gaming the system (remember the page is DS, thus normal standards may not apply).Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WW, posting random warnings on my talk page without an explanation of why you think they should be there is not OK. You are welcome to post on my talk page to work out disagreements. I am now stating that you are not welcome to post warnings (other than required notices). This is the only restriction I'm apply to you with regards to my talk page. You are welcome to discuss concerns with me on my talk page.

Since you felt I was canvasing you are welcome to explain why so we can understand or rectify the issue. Springee (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The definition of WP:votestacking:

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

That is precisely what you did here, following your comment here. You knew or believed that group of editors had a "predetermined point of view or opinion" and "selectively notified" them to "encourage them to participate in the discussion". Textbook.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Was there any editor he had not notified who had not already commented?Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm finding that question hard to parse. None of the editors he notified had (yet) commented, if that is what you are asking.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No I am asking who he failed to notify, and if there were any had they yet to comment in the new discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , of those involved in the most closely related prior discussion s/he failed to notify user:dlthewave, and in the discussion on the Port Arthur massacre he failed to notify user:London Hall and user:Fluous. There may be more I missed, but all three of those would probably (based on their previous positions) take the opposite view to all the editors s/he did notify.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , I think this is WW not understanding the applicable policies/guidelines. Per WP:APPNOTE it is appropriate to notify editors who previously discussed the same or similar topic. The material WW added to the Colt AR-15 page was discussed last February. I notified all the editors involved in that discussion (other than those already active in today's discussion who wouldn't need notification). Springee (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as you notified all editors who had previously been involved (and were not already participating) this would not be canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See above.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It does appear I missed Dlthewave. I chose not to notify the Port Arthur participants as that wasn't related to the current discussion. Springee (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , You notified eight editors and left out one - and that one just happened to be the only one out of nine (likely to be) on the other side.  That's quite a coincidence, if it was a coincidence.  You also chose not to include the editors from the closely related discussion on inclusion of the Port Arthur mass shooting - which just happened to turn out the opposite way from what you and the editors you notified wanted.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at there discussion prior to Proposal 1 and Proposal 1. Other than Dlthewave, which editors did I fail to notify who weren't already involved? Drop the accusations of bad faith. Springee (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now I see why I missed. Do didn't vote and their one comment in the relevant section (not the port Arthur proposal) was deeply nested in a chain of replies. I missed it the second time and was about to trumped how I didn't miss it after all. Dlthewave's notification of the Port Arthur editors would be harder to support as appropriate notification since the discussions aren't strongly related. Also Dlthewave missed notifying Tom so it appears mistakes can be made. Springee (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see the AR-15 edits as being at 3RR, as the first edit was an attempt to address the concerns expressed on the Talk page about the word "many". And what's with the section name of "Bad edits"?
 * Separately, canvassing in the topic area should generally be avoided. See for example, Arbitration Enforcement discussion from March 2018: "Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon". Given that the votes in the prior Colt AR-15 discussion came largely from WP:GUNS members, pinging them may be "frowned upon". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2018 (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. Thank you. 72bikers (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page restrictions
WW, on the 12th I posted the following warning you of the limits of what you may post to my talk page. []
 * ''WW, posting random warnings on my talk page without an explanation of why you think they should be there is not OK. You are welcome to post on my talk page to work out disagreements. I am now stating that you are not welcome to post warnings (other than required notices). This is the only restriction I'm apply to you with regards to my talk page. You are welcome to discuss concerns with me on my talk page.

This comment on my talk page was a violation of that restriction[]. Springee (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you like me to repost it with diffs?  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What he is stating is very clear, as policy supports his request. Do not post warnings about your perceived violation. You have clearly not shown the ability to judge what should or what should not be valid reasons for this. -72bikers (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * First off, no, policy does not support his/her request. In fact it's at odds with the purpose of a user talk page.  Second, that was obviously not a "random" warning - s/he knew exactly what it was for, it was a completely clear (if minor) infraction on Springee's part.  I'm happy to provide the diffs if there is any doubt of that.  Third, apparently Springee is OK with discussions on his/her talk page, but not "canned" warnings.  That's odd, since the point of the canned warnings is they are neutral and written carefully by someone else.  With that said, to avoid pointless arguments in the future I simply won't post on his/her talk page at all unless I feel it's really necessary.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I hate to have to point out you are once again wrong. Two policies WP:HUSH and WP:NOBAN (and by the way just common courtesy) contradicts your assertions. Again these failures could have perhaps been avoided if you would have read the content I placed on your page, instead of just deleting and claiming disruptive. -72bikers (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:HUSH is about harassment, not legitimate warnings and comments. WP:NOBAN says "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request", but that is not in fact what Springee asked.  Anyway, this is a pointless conversation for several reasons (for one thing, it has nothing to do with you) and it will end here.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 10:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize you are just attempting to make excuses instead of accepting reality. You have done this "Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings"" and this just confirms you are wrong again "it is sensible to respect their request" this just states this request is logical. I am here because of your troublesome behavior is still being repeated. This request is well known and accepted on Wiki. It is policy and as I stated before just common courtesy, so refusal is uncivil. -72bikers (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 72bikers, there was nothing wrong with that warning, it was justified. Now, please let this drop.  That's the second time I'm asking you.  You've already brought an invalid 3RR case against me.  If you keep this pattern of behavior up, it may rise to the level of harassment or WP:HOUNDING.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

With this edit, Springee, you alerted another users comments. This is against policy WP:TPO, thus the warning was in fact valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be much, much better if editors used an ounce of real-world common sense and remembered that WP:IAR, unlike WP:TPO, is policy. --Neil N  talk to me 15:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, and I would not have considered the edit a real violation, but to say "thus this violated my restriction" is not true. In fact (I note) both edds are guilty of altering each others posts over this, and both edds are thus equal guilty of showing zero "common sense" over this matter (which I was about the point out when I saw your edit).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact looking at it, it is all a bit childish (on both sides). And this warning here is just as frivolous and silly as the one WW posted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I think you are both heading towards an IBAN at this rate. You both need to lay of each other.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Help avoiding an edit war"
Hi Springee, this could potentially look like block shopping: "Help avoiding an edit war". It was also probably worth mentioning that the edit war was instigated by you - with three reverts, more than any other editor on the page. It was not about get[ting] dragged into another edit war against your will :-). Separately, it may not be a good idea to discuss users with administrators without notifying them. Given the contentious topic area, I would certainly avoid that, as it may look like "shopping" for a friendly admin. Courtesy ping: . K.e.coffman (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, thanks for pinging me - I wasn't aware of this. Since User:Springee immediately reverted your edit on their talk page (and has told me I'm not welcome to post there here and here) I've taken the liberty to copy your comment here. I hope that's OK with you, if not, please go ahead and delete it. Springee, Oshwah, would you care to discuss the issue here?  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like User:Springee asked another admin about this as well here. Courtesy ping:.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with my message being copied here. However, I did not receive a ping. It may be because of how the pings were added, without your signature. Please see Help:Fixing failed pings for more details. You may want to ping Oshwah separately. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - will do.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you get a ping that time, K.e.coffman? I added one and then removed it per Help:Fixing failed pings.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Many editors post on my talk page looking for advice regarding areas I've adminned in. As long they're not inappropriately trying to get another admin's decisions overturned, I don't have a problem with it. --Neil N  talk to me 18:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK - thanks.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential RfC
I think you should take NeilN on his offer to help with an RfC. He's an experienced admin and is familiar with the subject area. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. An RfC would help separate the straw poll from the meta discussion about whether or not we should even be discussing this, as well as bring in a wider range of editors. –dlthewave ☎ 23:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Per consensus
The consensus policy says WP:consensus:
 * ''In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

We don't have a consensus to support the material from the previous week. That is why I went back to the "many" version. Springee (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the lead of the AR-15 style rifle article, it's been unchanged for about a week, so per that policy it will require consensus to change it.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Locks don't indicate a consensus view and the time during the freeze also doesn't indicate stability. If you are unsure about that I would suggest asking an admin.  Please review WP:DIS. Springee (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably best to discuss this on the talk page, see my comment there. Thanks.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am gona say you are heading form a block, the page is under DS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Request
There is currently a discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Direct link [] Springee (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)