User talk:12.30.216.138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — CharlotteWebb 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Trolling

"Green" - IMO, you are trolling: Creating discussion where none belongs. If you do not stop now, you will be reported to the administrators for editing abuse. This is your only warning. --EMS | Talk 04:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

He is trolling and he's using disgusting language. I move that we have him banned permanently. Moroder 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Pupeteering

"green" you are also "sock pupeteering" by using a second account : 4.227.136.248 Moroder 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Moroder - I have seen him on a second IP, but he signed the post "green". While I would prefer that he get an account, it is not "sock pupeteering" for him to get onto another machine as long as he continues to identifty himself. Only if he is evading a block is that in an issue. --EMS | Talk 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravitational potential

Green -

A gravitational potential is really just a measure of energy needed to move an object up or down in an accelerated frame of reference. Curvature makes no difference in this regard. A gravitational potential exists whenever masses appear to be accelerated by a force whose stength is proportional to the mass of the object. In free fall (which is inertial motion), there is no local gravitational potential (but becuase of curvature a tidal field can be observed at distant positions). However, between the top and bottom of a building when we are a rest with respect to the surface of the Earth, there is gravitational potential. Please note that the cause of the potention is not spacetime curvature, but instead our being in an accelerated frame of reference beacuse whatever we are standing on keeps us from falling downwards. --EMS | Talk 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More trolling

Green - I am going to continue to remove content until and unless you stop pushing your own personal viewpoint here. Your questions are good, but they belong on USENET, not here. That article has major issues, including obtaining the proper citations. You have become a major distraction from the issue of editing the article, and that is the issue I have with you now.

I may or may not e-mail you. You have no comprehension of what I have been trying to tell you, and instead have shown that you lack the conceptual framework needed to bridge the gap between our positions. I am not here to be your personal relativity teacher. --EMS | Talk 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The purpose of the talk pages

Green - You may not be intending to troll, but even so your actions do amount to trolling. I see where you are coming from: You want the content of the article to be mathematically and conceptually vetted. That is all fine and dandy, but that is not what the talk pages exist for. The issue is what the content of the article should be, and that is fundamentally driven by what the literature on the issue says. Whether of not the view in the literature is correct is a whole other issue which is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

To help to orient a newbie on the technical aspects of a subject like the twin paradox is one thing. However, going in circles over whether the GR solution is correct or not is another. The issue here is whether the GR solution should be presented, and if so how the related facts should be presented. If you lack the knowledge needed to make sound judgements on those points, you should not be discussing that aspect of the subject. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in communicating with you further. Please stop sending me messages. Do as you wish with the article. green 12.30.216.138 05:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
(Note: I will see responses posted here.) --EMS | Talk 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final block warning

For violations of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL, notably this edit.[1] Bear in mind that Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy requires that articles reflect the shape of debate in peer reviewed literature rather than the ways that particular editors prefer to frame issues. DurovaCharge! 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fwiw, I was a software engineer for many years at a prestigious NASA laboratory, and I never come across the term "sock puppet". Hence, when I was accused of "sock puppeterring" by a user who was previously abusive (Moroder), I thought the phrase was a surrogate for "cocksucker". It is, indeed, odd that such a term was chosen for someone who tries to evade a block, which, btw, was not was I was doing at the time. My usual server was not functioning so I used an alternate. As for Wiki policies re: editing, I am well aware of same. green 12.30.216.138 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 48 hour block

That explanation doesn't hold much water in light of the following uncivil post[2] and continued disruption.[3] DurovaCharge! 04:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/2/2E/User_talk%7E12.30.216.138.html"