User talk:76.89.246.73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 76.89.246.73, is registered to Roadrunner (ISP), an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Contents

[edit] Censoring

i must say you are comic guys, You even censor my user talk! incredible (-:, take care im out of this place, dont worry, as i say people are increasingly loosing respect for wikiepdia. Thats - the toll you pay for the obvious pro-western, pro-system, pro-america, pro-etc. (and yes im pro-sytem, pro-america and scientist, but i keep a certain objectivity): 'those who try to impose the truth with the tools of power are the laugh - of the gods'Einstein

If you care to look, I responded to your point on the LHC talk page. On wikipedia if there is a dispute it is discussed prior to inclusion, not the other way round. As you have also accused me of impropriety and censorship, I have brought this WP:ANI for further admin attention. Khukri 11:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--John (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

jOHN I WILL HAVE TO PROTEST I HAVE DONE AN EDITING ONLY IN ONE DAY YOU DONT HAVE RIGHTS TO BLOCK ME THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (THE WIKIPEDIA CONSTITUTION THAT IS:)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "JOHN BREAKS WIKIPEDIA RULES, I HAVE DONE SOME minor EDITS BUT ONLY 1 REVERSION IN THE LAST 24 HOURS AND HE HAS BLOCKED ME AGAIN 2 DAYS AND ERASED a perfect valid ARTICLE"

Decline reason: "You have been rightfully blocked for edit warring. Please wait until your block expires; request to unblock denied. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

NB I am assuming this is the same user as 71.106.210.93 who was blocked the other day for edit-warring on this exact material and also User:Homocion. If anyone wishes to unblock this IP I will not object; however I will then file a checkuser on the three. --John (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have reviewed your edits, and I have to concur with the editors who have been reverting you. The article Ice-nine is about the fictional substance from a book by Kurt Vonnegut. "Strangelets" are not really ice-nine, and as a result they don't have to be discussed in detail in the article. Just a brief mention of various processes that have (or could have) similar properties to ice-nine (as well as the real ice IX with unrelated properties) is sufficient. Please don't repeatedly revert to your preferred version; rather, take it to the appropriate talk page. (And please don't remove other people's comments [it's disruptive], and don't post in all capital leters [it's impolite, as if you were shouting].)

    As for your complaint that you didn't make more than three reverts using this IP address, I agree that the address 71.106.210.93 and account Homocion are apparently either used by you, or by a friend you have invited to support you. And attempts at gaming the policies are very much frowned upon.

    Regards, Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your additions to Hawking radiation

The problem with your addition to Hawking radiation was that it was completely unreferenced (except for a link to FAQ about black holes, which didn't support your point); see the policy of verifiability (and another policy page that states that original research is outside the scope of Wikipedia). The bottom line is that you shouldn't make major changes to the article without consensus on the appropriate talk page; as far as I can see, there was significant opposition to inclusion of your material in the article. Regards, Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

  1. Regarding removal of content from a talk page: fair point, complaint withdrawn.
  2. The three revert rule is a limitation, not an entitlement. You can indeed be blocked for revert warring, even if you make no more than three reverts in a day.
  3. I don't know what you refer to by "lhc". (Perhaps Large Hadron Collider? In that case, I have no connection with its construction, and neither am I aware that any other user has.)
  4. There's no reason to assume ulterior motives to people who revert you. In case of ice-nine, the material you have added to the article was off-topic; in case of Hawking radiation, see the editing summaries in the page history, and the talk page.
  5. For the record, I don't see anybody agreeing that your material is appropriate in the Hawking radiation article. The relevant quote is: "Of course Hawking radiation could be wrong, that's stated early on. The problem is that the new material does not provide a clear enough english text for me to follow, and I'm a typical (and sympathetic) reader. I am not going to revert, but I will say that I think that these types of additions are not clear enough or substantial enough to be included, and should at the very least be discussed here first until two people can agree on what the additions are trying to say." I will NOT restore your edits of the article; please take it to the talk page.
  6. By the way, how does the "black holes FAQ" you have linked to support your opposition to the Hawking radiation?
  7. As for disambiguation, you probably refer to the ice-nine page. Exactly what do you plan to do there?

Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawking Radiation

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Peel (talk • contribs) 28 February 2008

[edit] Hawking radiation

You have added new content to Hawking Radiation four times, and every time your content has been reverted by the next editor; in other words, mainstream WP editors all disagree with your edits. Your arguments cannot be found in any textbook, book, article, or lecture by a physicist, mathematician, logician, or philosopher of science. By way of contrast, the mainstream part (not yours) of the Hawking radiation] article is supported by several decades' worth of work by physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers. This difference is important: most Wikipedia editors think you are wrong; their thinking is backed up by the mainstream literature. You, and to all appearances you alone, think you are right, but your thinking (including thoughts like "Aristotle is relevant to Hawking radiation") is ... well, yours alone.

This WP article is meant to communicate the mainstream views on Hawking radiation. As such, your non-mainstream argument is inappropriate; if you post it again it will be deleted again, and your risk getting banned for edit warring or vandalism. If you think your argument is correct and important, please write to Physical Review Letters and convince them first. After you have published an article presenting your argument in a mainstream forum, you may reference that article here. Until then, your edits will continue to be deleted as WP:OR.

Also, please click on "log in/create account" on the upper right corner of any WP page; it's easier to be a productive WP editor if you're logged in with a username. Bm gub (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Hawking radiation, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you for attempting to cite an article this time, but the article you mentioned did not actually support your thesis---quite the opposite, in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm gub (talk • contribs) 10 March 2008

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hawking radiation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Hawking radiation. 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Avi (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon@76.XXX, you may have noticed a strong consensus at Hawking Radiation---and the consensus says that your ideas for the article are wholly incorrect. You have responded by simply reposting the incorrect material in a large block; this looks a whole lot more like "stubborn anonymous vandal" than like "good editor trying to improve article". If you want your edits to be taken seriously, please (a) log in as a user (it's free, and you retain real-world anonymity), (b) sign your edits, and (c) seek consensus on the facts, remembering that the consensus may well be something you disagree with, rather than reposting a manifesto. Bm gub (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly advice

I would counsel your review of our core principles of verifiability, the prohibition against original research or synthesis, purposes for which wikipedia is not to be used, the requirement for a neutral point of view with a special focus on the proper exposure given to various ideas, including the option for none at all, as well as the definition of disruptive editing.

Everyone recognizes that you have strong opinions, and even if you have a doctorate and teach at an Ivy League university (which is a strange statement considering that your IP resolves to Istanbul, Turkey - see here), that is irrelevant on wikipedia. Perhaps if you can prove your bona fides you would be welcome at Citizendium, which has a different policy regarding expertise. However, here, we follow the policy of consensus, and it is rather clear that the consensus on this article, by some very, very bright people, is that your theories are inappropriate for that page.

Please review the information I have supplied you and abide by the policies and guidelines of this project. Intentional disregard for wikipedia policies and guidelines may results in actions being taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Write up a review article

submit it here to Phys. Rev. D

If accepted for publication, you can write a short summary in the wiki article while citing your review article. This is still not 100% bona fide because you selected your own article to be incuded in the wiki article, but this is far better than what you are attempting to do now. Count Iblis (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)