User talk:Geoeg

Welcome!

Hi Geoeg! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Aboutmovies 01:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to signal processing

Hi Geoeg,
I have reverted (undone) your recent edit to signal processing, in which you placed a link to Vaníček analysis. With respect, I do not think that such a short article on the very basic concepts in signal processing has room for a link to Vaníček analysis, which is IMO a little-known aspect of spectrum estimation. I do agree that there is a lot lacking in this article and I would be glad if you would expand it, but I don't think that adding links to specific advanced topics is the way to go. Cheers, --Zvika 06:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vanicek analysis is not so little known as you might think. It went under different names, as noted in the Historical Background section. The number of references that had used the method for spectrum computation since the method was invented counts in thousands, if not tens of thousands. Amongst the experts in spectral analysis, the Vanicek method is a very good alternative to Fourier analysis for analyzing incomplete datasets, so I saw it only fair to mention the alternative each time the FA is mentioned, as well. Again, I don't see any problem with listing the method on the signal processing page. --Geoeg 12:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I happen to have two standard textbooks on signal processing in my bookshelf (Porat and Oppenheim-Schafer) with chapters on spectrum estimation. They discuss standard methods like periodograms and ARMA estimation, but neither of them mentions Vanicek. It is possible that Vanicek is famous in the geodesy community, but it doesn't sound like he is well-known in the signal processing community. --Zvika 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Check out astronomy community, for instance. --Geoeg 20:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduce yourself?

Geoeg, you're obvioiusly an expert on the method you've written up. However, it is important to make sure you keep the writeup neutral (see WP:NPOV), and not biased by your closeness to the subject. I guess from your handle that it probably represents the Geodesy etc. department where the inventor of your method teaches. Were you his grad student? Is that perhaps your thesis you've referenced? Dicklyon 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked that policy, and the articles I wrote seem OK to me. All sources cited are verifiable and published by reliable sources, some of which are indeed prominent e.g. Press et al. All claims in the article seem to be supported by such references too (but please let me know if you find some that aren't, and I'll provide references). That thesis was included as it contains a rather general description of the method; it doesn't seem like there are too many reliable sources that write on the topic in general terms. The thesis also includes examples of references from various fields. I believe it to be a good source of information for the encyclopedia reader. I hope to have more links of the kind posted soon, so this thesis should be viewed as a temporary but by no means the only such source to be listed; more links of the kind are coming, probably as soon as today. I don't know if you would call me an expert, but I am trained in geodesy (no, I don't represent the department you mention). I cleaned up the geodesy page a bit; I'll try to do some more edits when I have time. It seems like geodesy related topics are not being overseen regularly, so it will be my pleasure. --Geoeg 12:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but since you won't say who you are, you will under some close scrutiny and suspicion of possible WP:COI as a WP:SPA. Dicklyon 12:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, could you please stop switching places between fullstops/commas and reference numbers? From what I gathered reading Wikipedia instructions on editing, it's just a matter of style, not a must. Thanks. --Geoeg 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll leave that to you if you actually prefer the other way. But don't put extra spaces before the footnote numbers. Also, don't use a footnote number as if it is a noun, as in "see Abstract in [8]"; and Abstract should not be capitalized there. Dicklyon 12:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I left the above entries so that everyone can see how you push your own style preferences pretending they are a must according to WP, which demonstrates your acting from position of power. But, who cares about your preferences really... --Geoeg 20:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Petr Vaníček, you will be blocked from editing. Removal of maintenance tags without doing the maintenance first is considered vandalism, especially when done without discussion. Dicklyon 02:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you calling me a vandal? But I caught you today (several times) making shameful mistakes concerning Petr Vaníček and Vaníček Analysis pages! Repetition normally signals intention, so those "mistakes" may be exposing you as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. You call me a vandal, after you were proven unable to justify your moves? Whew, some guts...

Please, either cool down (as I said on Talk:Vaníček analysis), or pass the case on to someone who knows what they're talking about, someone with manners, please. --Geoeg 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion (see WP:3O) on the talk pages of the Vaníček articles where the two of us have been having disagreements. Dicklyon 02:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you wrote this as I was writing the above reply. Good, now please do the same for Petr Vaníček page. --Geoeg 02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Petr Vaníček, you will be blocked from editing. Dicklyon 03:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read my replies to your objections before you issue warnings. Your hurry intrigues me. Don't you have to exercise objectivity when you are an editor here? (At least in science you do). Also, one would think that no tags are to be placed until after the dispute was resolved. --Geoeg 03:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is about your repeated removal of the tag, after explanation of why you should leave it until it spurs some action. Dicklyon 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that's called a distortion of facts. The tag on Petr Vaníček came at the end of the dispute. You started the dispute with your objections to Vaníček analysis. You treat those pages unrelated or related interchangeably, depending on whether it's good for your argument or not. --Geoeg 08:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Your recent edits to Talk:Vaníček_analysis could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is response to this comment. Veiled legal threats are not tolerated here, regardless of motivation. If you have a genuine dispute with a user, please use dispute resolution: further veiled threats will lead to your being blocked from editing per WP:LEGAL. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to least squares

I've reverted your edit to least squares for the same reasons as our discussion above. Least squares is a hugely useful technique with thousands of applications (take a look at the pages linking to it to get a glimpse). It does not make sense to add a link to specific applications. --Zvika 20:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have no problem with that. Geoeg 23:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Least-squares_spectral_analysis. 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. As I mentioned, editors are not allowed to make more than 3 reverts to any given page in a 24 hour period. I'm leaving this message for both of you, as you both seemed to gone past 3 here. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the template, but given that I mentioned this already, I wanted to be clear. Please stop reverting. I'm assuming good faith on your part, but the only exceptions to 3RR are based on blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop. You know I was only reverting your removing of tags. I doubt he will stop though, as he seems blinded with rage as no argument (and there are many, indeed) seems to work on him. Cheers. --Geoeg 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that would interpret my stubbornness as rage. I'm actually pretty calm and getting lots of other work done in spite of the distraction of cleaning up after you on wikipedia. Sure, you annoy me, but wikipedia is not worth getting into a rage over. Dicklyon 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one gets an impression after reading your Talk page that you act from the position of power, more like some sort of an authority wannabe, and that in doing so you succeed to repel quite a few enthusiastic (new) editors. --Geoeg 16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have reverted my edits more than three times in 24 hours on least-squares spectral analysis. You are hereby warned that if you do it again you will be blocked from editing for a period, based on WP:3RR. I advise you to issue a similar warning to me. Dicklyon 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You advise me to issue a warning to you? I don't understand that sort of humor. It was you who has been reverting Bfigura's and mine moves -- about a dozen times per day, for the last couple of days. If you enjoy receiving warnings, I suggest you issue a warning to yourself. --Geoeg 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Incident report filed

Courtesy notice: out of frustration with your behavior, I have filed an Incident report in which I recommend you be briefly blocked to let you know that policies and guidelines are not to be ignored. Dicklyon 15:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope they notice your "out of frustration" note in the above, and then read the entire talk on the related pages. I also hope they consult other editors who also found your actions strange (to put it mildly). In summary, you apply regulations rigidly in order to push your POV on something you lack knowledge in, which is proved by your claims that Fourier analysis is a least-squares technique. --Geoeg 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also asked for a block for violating WP:3RR, though it's not by any means your worst offense. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Dicklyon 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep on setting block traps as it obviously represents an enjoyment for you. But I will never ask for any measures against anyone, including you. I will maintain the record of your violations of WP regulations, in case some admins want to hold you responsible for disrespecting WP. --Geoeg 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Geodynam.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Geodynam.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 12 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article least-squares spectral analysis , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 19:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This indeed gives me a great deal of satisfaction, especially since this recognition comes despite the naughty edit war started by an unqualified editor. --Geoeg 20:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Petr Vaníček. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Petr Vaníček).

Stifle (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are NSF images really acceptable?

Hi there. May I ask why you re-labeled Geodynam.jpg as lacking proper source? I stated on the image page the exact NSF page where the image was taken from, and I have included the proper NSFIL tag too. Thanks. --Geoeg 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I overlooked the link in the upload log. According to the page you got the image from, it's not a suitable image for Wikipedia, since it's restricted to non-commercial use only. --Carnildo 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by overlooked, does it mean it's all settled now? If not, why does Wikipedia:Free image resources (at the bottom) show NSFIL as acceptable images? --Geoeg 22:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's okay for source, but the image license itself is not appropriate. Wikipedia:Free image resources is a bit misleading: some NSFIL images are acceptable on Wikipedia. This is not one of them. --Carnildo 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning again

Geoeg, we're in danger of violating the three revert rule again today. You've removed tags from Petr Vanicek 3 or 4 times already in the last 24 hours, and I've put them back 3 times. If you remove them again, I will report you again, only this time I'll be careful not to be in violation myself. So settle down, and see if any of those others you mention care to take your side in this. Dicklyon 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Petr Vaníček. 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.

Sam Blacketer 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geoeg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, I am surprised you blocked me without first checking Talk:Least-squares spectral analysis where you can see (at the bottom) Dicklyon abused blocking process by using it while he is away for a couple of days, so he would like to impose his POV even while he is away. In the previous discussion on that same Talk page, as well as on related Talk:Petr Vaníček which he stated as the location of my abuse but "forgot" to mention Talk:Least-squares spectral analysis where he inadvertently revealed his 2-day trip, you can see that I had notified people on talk pages that he was setting a trap like this. I don't think the world should freeze while this person is away, but apparently he disagrees. Also note that my views on the two Talk pages have been supported by three other editors too (Bfigura, EdJohnston, and to an extent Zvika) and his view by one (Athaenara) who barely took part in the discussion. When I mentioned that there were four views against his, he posited that they must repeat their views. I have never heard of anything like that. As you can see by his placing the tags just now back on Petr Vaníček, he was waiting until you ban me (but making sure he does not get banned, as he established his righteousness yesterday by strangely requesting a 6-hour ban on both of us so now I am the bad person for having 2 bans in 2 days while he just 1 ban -- that is so childish). I kindly request (1) removal of this ban and (2) investigation into his abuse of banning procedure as well as his abusive behavior in general – see two talk pages for details. Please note that my article Least-squares spectral analysis has just been featured on WP Main Page by admin Allen3 as Template:Did_you_know, so I have valid reasons to be listened to. Unfortunately he keeps tagging the scientist’s (Vanicek's) bio page despite opposition from four several editors besides me, just so it can be the way he wants, or until he is back from a trip at least.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violation of WP:3RR. Your unblock request does not address this issue. The behaviour of another user is not relevant for the question of whether or not you should be unblocked. Your incivility below does not help. — Sandstein 05:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I did not question 3RR. I stated Dicklyon's misuse of it. Can you please pass my complaint on to another admin? Thanks. --Geoeg 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do not question that you violated 3RR, there is no reason to unblock you. An unblock request must not contain arguments unrelated to the block at issue. It remains unclear what your complaint about Dicklyon is, but given your incivil attitude here, I am not inclined to act on it at any rate. Sandstein 21:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL --Geoeg 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Geoeg, sorry I was not more clear, but I will only be away on Monday, which is only coincidentally when your block expires; I had no way to predict that relationship, as I didn't know when or for how long you might get blocked. Furthermore, the admin who blocked you advised me not to revert you or I'd be in violation of 3RR myself; so I didn't. Anyway, I think the world will little note my absense on Monday; the world won't freeze without us. Dicklyon 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this now, you started popping up on my Talk page, interfering even with my unblocking request? Perhaps you forgot to state your case when you requested the ban; how many chances do you think you should get? What I find really incredible is that you actually found a way around, that is, how to damage Vaníček analysis page (that you even renamed to Least-squares spectral analysis according to a rule imposed by yourself), not only when you are at your computer, but also while away from it. I am honestly impressed by your intelligence level; you don't get to see that every day! But my god, what an annoying and nitpicking personality to go with it! --Geoeg 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no rule, nothing imposed. I proposed a move, we discussed it for a few days, and you were the only person who thought the article should be named after the method's originator, whom you admire greatly I understand, instead of after the name that it is widely and generically called. I waited until I got a third opinion, then moved it. You responded with nothing but personal attacks and abuse during the whole process. I hope you can start to see through your confusion and get an idea how collaborative editing works, so you can take part in it. Dicklyon 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been doing the same thing on the respective talk pages as well. No matter how many arguments, or how many editors against, or how many facts come up of your ignorance in the subject matter, but you still push your POV based on your own rigid interpretation of regulations. Get this once and for all: notability of a scientist is established by his/her peers, not general audience. You exhibit extreme arrogance wrapped up in what sometimes looks like civil talk. You also seem to be helped by a minority of editors, perhaps some sort of a circle of confidants. --Geoeg 12:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The notability I was referring to was according to the wikipedia definition; please review WP:NOTE and WP:NPA. Dicklyon 16:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. It does not say notability of a scientist is not established by his peers and that is general knowledge. Live with it. --Geoeg 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. It makes no exception for scientists after detailing what is meant by the general guideline "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I believe you had brought up Einstein and other notable scientists as one of your arguments; notice that Einstein "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That's why he's notable, and not all good scientists are, per wikipedia definition; it's not like I'm making this stuff up. In fact, I've cut you more slack than any pushy newbie in history; I'm getting too old to get upset by such nonsense, and too stubborn to let it pass; live with it. Dicklyon 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned Einstein in the context you are trying to portray I did. You are imagining things again. Sounds like you are inventing entire issues now, just so that you can deny them successfully. When you can't beat the reality (of majority editors being against you) -- then invent one of your own so you can sell wisdom (here: of a WP elder) to whomever cares. LOL --Geoeg 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The many comments Dicklyon has left (1) here on my Talk page over the past two days, (2) as well as many changes he has made to the two articles over the past two days, as well as (3) many comments he has posted on his Talk page (on unrelated topics), is the best indication of his manipulation. Meaning: he probably was never "leaving for a two day trip (or whatever)" but has set me a trap and then used all the time to make so many changes that are difficult to even trace now. Many of those changes are so wrong that I must call it vandalism. --Geoeg 14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RFC opened

Geoeg, I have opened a "request for comment" on your conduct. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct, and especially Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geoeg where you have an opportunity to response and tell your side of the story. You may want to look at other current and past RFCs to get an idea how wikipedia dispute resolution works, and how the community deals with breakdowns in normal processes. Dicklyon 06:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I get time I will respond to you latest trap. --Geoeg 11:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no trap. In fact, it's a good opportunity for you to realize that working against wikipedia policies and guidelines is not going to get you where you want to go. I'm sure that if you'd state that you'll avoid editing where you have a conflict of interest, and avoid using edit summaries and talk pages for personal attacks, and then live up to that, the whole thing would be quickly forgotten. Dicklyon 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As it turned out I was right, because during your alleged "absence" (and mine too, as you had me blocked and then autoblocked by you), you continued editing without stop. So yes, it was a trap that repeats for the second weekend now. I clearly stated two weeks ago that I have more time during weekends, so you are trying to kick me out of game every weekend and use that time to make so many changes to my articles that any attempt by me to clear the articles up must be perceived by an outside viewer as vandalism (too many reverts). --Geoeg 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did here. If you continue to violate our civility policy, you may be blocked for disruption. Thank you. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing Tags

Please stop removing tags. There appears to be a consensus that they need to stay for now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not recall seeing any such consensus? All I see are allegations based on Dicklyon's imagination as to my identity, following his illegitimate but unsuccessful interrogations. Perhaps you would like to point at the place where it says the consensus has been reached. Until you do, the tags are out. --Geoeg 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Least-squares_spectral_analysis, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This [1] is unacceptable. Don't do it again. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How many times do you think you should "warn" me about the same post? By the way, the post contains also information related to the discussion, as well as facts that make Dicklyon ashamed (which is why he tries so desperately removing those from the Talk pages). --Geoeg 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Petr Vaníček. 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.

- KrakatoaKatie 05:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geoeg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There has been NO reversal, just editing Dicklyon's vandalism (his edits for which he not only has no consensus but is IN MINORITY). Read Talk:Petr Vaníček and Talk:Least-squares spectral analysis to see what is going on. Dicklyon sets blocking traps by claiming my legitimate edits of his vandalism (minority views) are actually reversals. For example of other administrators rejecting his attempt to misuse the procedures, see User talk:Dicklyon#Least squares. Therefore, I demand to be unblocked. (Not less important: I never reverse without a reason.) He then uses the time I am blocked to rewrite the pages he normally would not be allowed to vandalize, and he disputes and deletes scientific references, dismisses doctoral theses, imposes his own POV, his own writing style, and so on. He does this with a smile, so he is not your typical vandal but more like a full-time one. Also, if you read the Talk pages and my edit field comments, it has been repeatedly demonstrated in there that he lacks knowledge on the method the two articles are about. Remove the block, please. --Geoeg 14:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clear revert warring against multiple editors. You were not reverting simple vandalism. You may have had a reason for your edits but you are not permitted to engage in revert wars. — Yamla 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geoeg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

"Good reason for another admin to unblock" as per above: Dicklyon who requested the block has been doing reverts as well. A "revert war", as Yamia called it, just like any other war takes a minimum of two parties. Yamia has demonstrated prejudice since he recognized this as revert war but failed to block the other party as well, so regardless of Yamia’s words, he practically took sides here. So I request that another admin removes the block, or, block the other party too.

Decline reason:

Nope. "Block him too" is not a reason to unblock. — jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geoeg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not say that "Block him too" was the reason. "Block him too" would be a consequence of course. The reason was that this was recognized as edit war by admin Yamla (above), and as such it consists of two parties. If one party has sinned, the other party cannot be innocent. So, for the third time: please remove the block.

Decline reason:

I don't know that I see anything indicating this was an inappropriate block. The acting administrator made a judgement call, regarding individual user history, in particular history with 3RR violations, and current alleged violations and behavior; I would need a very strong reason to question that judgement call. I can't say that either of you is acting in an exemplary fashion, revert warring, but as with Jpgordon, I don't believe you've presented a compelling case for an unblock at this time. Sorry. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geoeg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

But my "individual user history" that shows two previous blocks is the point here: this person has actually caused my (only) three blocks. The first time, by asking an admin to block both me and him so that I get a negative history at the beginning of my membership (I am a newbie, as he likes to call me); then it was a matter of technicality for him to have me blocked for the second time as well, by simply reporting only me although he was the second involved party in that block too. The third time he actually autoblocked me until he returns from a two day absence (as he said). So now I have 3 blocks in ten days or so, but I still refuse to report him and ask for him to be blocked despite an extensive list of his violations (see it below). I do not believe in punishments but I do believe in logical judgments by administrators!

Decline reason:

If you clearly feel that you are being "baited" by Dicklyon, then you need to exercise more self-control. Regardless of the circumstances of the first two blocks, you should have learned that you will be involved in edit wars, and you need to make sure you do not violate policy. It seems you failed to learn that from your previous 3RR blocks, and I advise you to spend some time familiarizing yourself with WP:3RR. From the looks of it, you may run into this issue again, and I hope you'll have a better understanding of policy and a better control of your edits. Also, please desist from posting unblock requests again. All 4 unblock requests have been declined, so that should be a clear indication that your requests will not be accepted by other administrators in the future. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If we are left on our own, what is the point of administrators then... --Geoeg 14:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious acts of vandalism by Dicklyon

Here is a short list of your acts of obvious vandalism (whether WP recognizes them as such is another issue), so I'll just let everyone to judge on their own:

- dispute peer reviewed scientific papers off-handedly while admitting you are not a scientist/an expert yourself (and even tagging the article, soliciting expert help)

- dispute doctoral theses off-handedly (same as in the above)

- impose your writing style (such as hyphenation, or in-text reference tag position, etc.)

- interrogate as to one's identity

- pass allegations as to one's identity (dream on, but you will never find out)

- impose your imagination upon others, such as "your thesis" in the above

- misuse WP (blocking) procedures which mislead WP admins and other editors to have them enlist as supporting your POVs (as already recognized by this admin: User talk:Dicklyon#Least squares)

- use outright insults ("Sycophant" in the above, and others...)

- talk nonsense about the subject of the article you are desperately trying to "contribute" to (Talk pages Talk:Petr Vaníček and Talk:Least-squares spectral analysis are enough to demonstrate many such instances)

- mislead the reader by hiding in the article's lead (most visitors read only the leads) the fact that Scargle himself declared he had not invented a new scientific method and instead calling it "Scargle method" (sic)

- delete entire scientific references without discussing it first (post-announcing instead)

- make up regulations such as when claiming that a scientist's notability is established by popular vote and not by his/her peers, which is general knowledge obviously undisputed by any WP regulations

- impose Google (or Google Books) simple count of search returns as the measure of what a scientific method should be called in instances when there are multiple names

- impress your confusion on other editors (such as when citing two theses as being in agreement on trigonometric functions fit and not just sinusoids fit, and then, contrary to your own finding, reverting the article to mention just sinusoids)

- avoid issues altogether as soon as they are countered by logical reasoning that kills your "argument"

- act from position of power (so I thought for almost a week, only to realize you are just an editor)

- set block traps so that you can make more damage to the articles over the weekend since I clearly stated I have more time during weekend (you are repeating this for two weekends now; hardly a coincidence)...

... As you can see, despite all the interference from you and pushing your own POV as listed in the above, the article has been already featured on WP main page. So why did I not report any of the above abuses of yours to anyone yet, and officially requested your ban as of yet? Well, since you did not notice, each one of the above examples represents violation of one or more of WP regulations. And given how many you have committed, the above series of misbehaviors could easily ban you for a long period of time. You are lucky I am a pacifist. All I care about is to write good articles founded on scientific, peer reviewed facts. One would expect that an engineer would have the minimum courtesy to not fight scientific references on Wikipedia. But I guess you have the guts to do it. Funny thing how many editors (admins too) on WP seem to be tucking you in. --Geoeg 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Vaníček analysis

I have nominated Category:Vaníček analysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Dicklyon 06:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Petr Vaníček

Just a note: the biographies on SVU were written by the subjects themselves, it is stated in a document on the website. Given the troubles they have in operations and publishing their journal it doesn't seem probable the biographies were independently reviewed.

The SVU is one of several groups Czech emigrants had created, neither of them being very influential outside emigreé circles, before or after 1989. Pavel Vozenilek 03:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk

Geoeg, in one of your recent edit summaries, you suggested I use the talk page. When I reverted you, I pointed out that you have not yet addressed my recent request for clarification of a point you started there. Why don't you follow up on my attempts to talk, so we an work it out? I've gone ahead and added what I think, based on sources, is behind your use of "trignometric functions", but you removed it without saying whether it was correct, wrong, or somewhere in between. If you don't respond to talk and edit attempts, how can we make progress on getting the details right? Dicklyon 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

Three times today (28 Oct.) you have reverted the "sinusoids" language to your preferred "trigonometric functions" language, as I've tried various things to explain, reference, talk about it, etc. Please engage rather than just reverting. If you revert again, I'll report you for 3RR violation again. Dicklyon 17:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither you nor I are experts in the article subject matter (least squares spectral analysis). But I cited 2 references that literally say "trigonometric functions", while your references all refer to another method (Fourier analysis) you freely interpret as to make it sound they refer to the article subject matter, though it is obvious they do not (in your mind, as you claimed it explicitly, Fourier analysis is still the same as least-squares spectral analysis, which is obviously a nonsense because WP has two completely separate articles both featured on WP main page btw). So I do not believe anyone any more will buy your misusing of Wikipedia regulations. There is no reversals here, not even technically speaking; because what is going on is mine (article author’s) cleaning of all the shit you keep spraying around. Just like so many editors noted (everyone just look at Dicklyon’s talk page) that you engaged in edit wars or insults exchanges with so far. You are just a trouble maker around here and everyone sees you as such. Now stuff your imaginative misinterpretations of WP regulations to where they belong. No 3RR violation on my part. But I know why you just threatened with reporting me: it is because I already mentioned to you today that you are in violation of 3RR yourself. "Sinusoids" is another result of your imagination as NO REFERENCE ON LSSA EVER MENTIONS IT, so it is not a reversal to remove your ignorance, cleaning your shit is what it is. --Geoeg 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)