Pacomc999

January 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gravitational lens, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Gravitational lens, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: see [1] for another source. If you don't like it, you need to go to the article page and get wp:CONSENSUS to remove the—properly sourced—content. - DVdm (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gravitational lens. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - DVdm (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: by the way, here's another one, added with this edit:

Wolfgang Rindler (2006). Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological (2nd ed.). OUP Oxford. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-19-152433-2. Extract of page 21

"What the calculation yielded was a deflection of light from distant stars by the sun’s gravity (for light just grazing the sun) through an angle of 1.7"—just twice as much as the bending one gets in Newtonian theory by treating light corpuscularly."

- DVdm (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)