User talk:Apoc41

.30-06 Springfield ‎

Use the Talk page to discuss your edit. Do not make the edit again until you have achieved a consensus with other editors to do so. If you fail to do this, I will request that you be blocked. General Ization ^Talk 00:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply my edit was correct by manufacturers blueprint. The edit prior to mine removing the correct caliber designation was incorrect. Apoc41 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your edit is legitimate, follow the instructions above. General Ization ^Talk 01:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that you discuss your edit at Wikipedia Talk:Consensus. I suggested you do so at the article's Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 01:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was legitimate and I used the talk page. Why did you not revert War Haven’s edit? Their edit was incorrect. Apoc41 (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was War Raven’s incorrect edit not reverted and when will my correction be applied? Apoc41 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit does nothing to clarify the caliber of the munition. The common name of the munition, and hence the title of the article, is ".30-06 Springfield". What does adding ".306APOCWON" to the name field in the infobox accomplish? What does it even mean? As I previously advised you, you must achieve consensus for this change by discussing it with other editors on the article's Talk page before you make the change again, and no "correction" will be made in the meantime. General Ization ^Talk 16:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is called that and designated that according to the manufacturer and it’s called that by former Soviet countries who shoot .306 rounds. It’s correct and gives the reader proper information which Wikipedia is suppose to do. Again, why did you not revert War Raven’s incorrect edit that removed the .306 edit of Dr Ira Leviton who posted it and it was upheld and not reverted back in June? I demand you revert War Raven’s INCORRECT edit Apoc41 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I did what you asked and I’m demanding you revert back to the page prior to October 3 edits. If not I will get your IP banned Apoc41 (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may not demand that other editors do anything, and you may not threaten other editors. I have explained to you how to pursue the matter, and if you do not follow the instructions I have given you, the change you are seeking is not likely to be made. I will certainly not make it without a consensus to support it. General Ization ^Talk 17:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did not say that you could proceed with your edit, or that it would be reinstated, after you "used" the Talk page. I said you needed to discuss the proposed change with other editors and achieve consensus. That will take time to accomplish, assuming you are able to do so. The article will reflect the current consensus in the meantime. General Ization ^Talk 17:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So for this, please got to the article source and simply provide reliable third party references that this is the case and we can move along. We need references, not your word unfortunately. Canterbury Tail talk 11:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]