User talk:67.189.222.137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Twin paradox. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Gscshoyru 18:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I have included some brief comments that address the bulk of the history of the Twin Paradox debate that were not addressed by the rest of the article. Factually discussing history is not a violation of neutrality.

The only non-neutral aspect seems to be the deletion of those comments.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Twin paradox, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Gscshoyru 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] Change?

You seemed to have dropped the non-neutral charge. On the new allegation, I have reviewed the Twin Paradox literature for many decades and can take one or more long lists of references to the Reference section. Is that what you are asking be done? Thanks!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Twin paradox. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I have calmly and logically used the edit page to respond to allegations. I have received no response to my substantive replies - just new and different allegations.

Also,note that I have merely restored what was deleted. Since the deletion came first, the deletions must have first violated the multiple update rule first whether individually or deceptively acting in tandem.

So that I might better respond to you, please let me know your status. Are you "just" another contributor to this topic? Are you acting in some official capacity as a special editor or special enforcer of Wikipedia rules with special authority given you? Thanks

Since you have not replied to my replies, have you dropped those allegations? Thanks again.

Also, you might consider not just immediately deleting an addition based on some alleged infraction (e.g., "non-neutral") prior to giving reasonable time for someone to respond. Yes, if it was an obscene entry or patent nonsense, then immediate deletion would be warranted. Hence, please restore the deletion and refrain from unilaterally deleting it again until reasonable discussion of this quite obviously reasonable addition seems upon third party review to have been exhausted and found wanting. You have not even responded to my replies and that would be just a first step in discussion. Thanks

All of them still hold, and all of them are true. You've been warned several times by several people, not just me, to not add that section, and yet you persist. Please stop. Next time it will be a WP:3RR violation, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You still are not answering the responses. Let's try one at a time: So that I might better respond to you, please let me know your status. Are you "just" another contributor to this topic? Are you acting in some official capacity as a special editor or special enforcer of Wikipedia rules with special authority given you? Thanks

I'm not special, but I am enforcing rules. Gscshoyru 05:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Contact request

Please contact me (my talk page/email/whatever). I'm currently working on a comprehensive annotated bibliography and review of the twin paradox, and would naturally like to see your "most extensive review of the Twin Paradox literature". Also I'd be grateful for citations of Shurcliff's papers on the twin paradox, a quick web search turned up just a remark on a paper by Fraundorf. A query of the Web of Knowledge didn't return anything. Paradoctor (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to User talk:TwPx has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)