User talk:TheRealForrest
If you do not stop edit-warring at the above article, you will be blocked from further editing. Go to the talk page, read through the decade+ of discussion, and if you still think you have something new to add, start a discussion there. But you won't, because there isn't anything new to add. Just stop. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have gone thru the talk. There is no empirical evidence to support scuttling. There is anecdotal testimony by surviving crew, a lot of which is hearsay. The ship is too deep in the mud to ascertain for sure whether scuttling happened or torpedoes breeched the hull or some combination of both. It lacks empirical integrity to say it was definitely scuttled as it also is not empirically proven the torpedoes. If you are going to show empirical or scientific integrity you must state the known knowns AND the known unknowns. The talk has become poisoned with fanboy mystique and motions, but what facts are clear and what facts are unclear is very clear. There are credible reports of scuttling, but no empirical proof. There are very credible reports of the derelict ship being torpedoed, but no empirical proof that caused her to be sunk. Why is this level of scientific inquiry and empirical integrity so difficult for you to accept? TheRealForrest (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly doubt you have read all of the discussions. Go through the archives, all of this has been debated to death, for literally 17 years now, and nothing you say will cause any of this to change. What is presented in the article is the best compromise we have been able to achieve. You are wasting your time with this; find something more productive to do. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly doubt you can read my mind and know what I have already read. TheRealForrest (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly doubt you have read all of the discussions. Go through the archives, all of this has been debated to death, for literally 17 years now, and nothing you say will cause any of this to change. What is presented in the article is the best compromise we have been able to achieve. You are wasting your time with this; find something more productive to do. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Edit-warring
[edit]You have been warned more than once about this; do not edit-war while the discussion is on-going. If you continue to try to insert your preferred version before consensus has been established, you will be blocked from editing. Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Again, you are speaking to your mirror. You have repeatedly war-edited attempts to improve this article in a disingenuous and scholastically inappropriate manner with a distinct lack of civility. We shall wait for the dispute resolution process to work its way out and hopefully improve this situation. TheRealForrest (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Simply stop with your fantasy edits made up in your own mind. --Denniss (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)