Jump to content

User talk:Eric mit 1992: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎COI: Editor has contact me via email and stated they have no COI. Removing this notice as the user is aware of our COI policies and states they aren't conflicted.
Line 49: Line 49:


Please note point #2 in the edit warring notice above in big bold letters: '''"Do not edit war even if you believe you are right."''' is unambiguous. Your excuse at 3RRN that your edits are "justified" will not fly. If you're not willing to follow proper [[WP:DR]] then perhaps it's best if you move on to less contentious pages. [[User:Saedon|<font color="#000000">Sædon]]<sup>[[User talk:Saedon|talk]]</sup></font> 01:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note point #2 in the edit warring notice above in big bold letters: '''"Do not edit war even if you believe you are right."''' is unambiguous. Your excuse at 3RRN that your edits are "justified" will not fly. If you're not willing to follow proper [[WP:DR]] then perhaps it's best if you move on to less contentious pages. [[User:Saedon|<font color="#000000">Sædon]]<sup>[[User talk:Saedon|talk]]</sup></font> 01:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

== Discretionary sanctions apply to [[pseudoscience]] topics ==

{{Ivmbox
| image = yes
| The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to [[pseudoscience]]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], satisfy any [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standard of behavior]], or follow any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision|Final decision]]" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]], with the appropriate sections of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures]], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and&nbsp;will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} -->
| valign = center
| [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|35px|alt=|link=]]
}} You have been edit warring at [[Blacklight Power]]. This company proposes a method of generating power that, if it worked, would violate the known laws of physics. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:24, 31 July 2012

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Blacklight Power. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your kind notice, Jim, but I am not violating procedure, in fact you are. Please see your talk page. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You are edit warring on a grand scale

Here's the list of your last 23 edits at Blacklight Power:

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 18:55, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "removing reference to arXiv paper, wherein arXiv is not a peer reviewed journal and the referenced paper was not published elsewhere. removed opinion based pieces from the lede. ")
  2. 19:09, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "fixes, further removing unsupported arXiv references ")
  3. 19:12, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "removed text references mainstream news articles that is not appropriate for 'peer-review research' section, and furthermore was opinion based material ")
  4. 19:32, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "a tangible entity, in this case a 'company', is not a 'theory' and cannot be characterized as 'fringe'. if/when a wiki page is added to detail GUT-CP, that page may be considered for fringe section. ")
  5. 19:41, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "replacing 'fringe theory' marker with 'unbalanced' market to satisfy other viewpoints (which I believe are incorrect, but I would like to compromise according to rules) ")
  6. 19:48, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "removing Pseudophysics category marker. this marker appropriate for pages detailing (intangible) theory, not applicable to a company page. GUT-CP page needed in near future. ")
  7. 20:16, 25 July 2012 (edit summary: "no thank you, I don't believe there is much to discuss. my edit comment is necessarily correct. Undid revision 504161939 by Bhny (talk) ")
  8. 23:12, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "Renamed section and re-did wording to make it completely factual rather than partly speculative Undid revision 504798676 by IRWolfie- (talk)")
  9. 23:14, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "removed opinions, which are clearly primary sources")
  10. 23:16, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "removed opinions, which are clearly from 'primary sources', which are clearly not experimentally supported, which are then by nature clearly not peer reviewed ")
  11. 23:19, 29 July 2012 (edit summary: "removed opinions, which are clearly from 'primary sources', which are clearly not experimentally supported, which are then by nature clearly not peer reviewed ")
  12. 00:08, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Theory and claims */ adding back valid and relevant text ")
  13. 00:17, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "You shall not delete the text that I originally posted until the discussion is complete. Undid revision 504850394 by IRWolfie- (talk)")
  14. 01:35, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "*See Talk* This page absolutely should not fall under 'Pseudoscience', and furthermore especially not 'Fringe theory'. This serves as an official dispute. Please do no undo this edit until consensus is reached. Thank you. ")
  15. 02:03, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "The article is clearly _not_ fringe, _nor_ pseudo-anything. I am making official dispute where text must be removed until consensus reached, and my case well established in talk. Undid revision 504862048 by Bhny")
  16. 21:21, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Commentaries */ removed Steven Chu quite, reference not provided, furthermore, only reference available is from 'Joe Shea' CNN iReport, not 'RS': http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-402579 ")
  17. 22:23, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Commentaries */ 'rexresearch.com' is not a RS EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)")[reply]
  18. 22:31, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Commentaries */ again, 'rexresearch.com' is not a RS. If/when a link to the article is found on the authoritative Dow Jones News Service website, or if/when a RS can be used to establish the DJ article is real, quote may be re-considered ")
  19. 23:01, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505005046 by IRWolfie- (talk) WP:BURDEN reference removed until consensus reached. ")
  20. 23:18, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505008151 by Jim1138 (talk) WP:BURDEN applies, material must be removed, further talk discussion just posted more strongly establishes case for perm. removal, please see Talk. ")
  21. 23:41, 30 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505010221 by Jim1138 (talk) --- Jim --> Please kindly read: WP:BURDEN . Thank you. And please keep up with Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)")[reply]
  22. 00:00, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "Bhny -- WP:BURDEN allows for and justifies this particular deletion. edits to the contrary are disruptive, in fact. It's fairly straightforward, please see last section of article's Talk page for complete detail. I look forward to your thoughts.")
  23. 00:38, 31 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 505016785 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) Quite clearly, this subject is in dispute, and quite clearly WP:BURDEN allows for the reference to be removed until consensus.")

I trust it is evident that you broke the WP:3RR rule on July 30. You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will immediately promise to stop editing this article until you can get a talk page consensus for your changes. Consider your options carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Blacklight Power. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Please note point #2 in the edit warring notice above in big bold letters: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." is unambiguous. Your excuse at 3RRN that your edits are "justified" will not fly. If you're not willing to follow proper WP:DR then perhaps it's best if you move on to less contentious pages. Sædontalk 01:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions apply to pseudoscience topics

File:Yes
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

You have been edit warring at Blacklight Power. This company proposes a method of generating power that, if it worked, would violate the known laws of physics. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_mit_1992&oldid=505111441"