User talk:Gagz7

How to "claim" your IP

If you would like to "claim" your IP address as your own, I suggest you use a template from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts to tell others you have multiple accounts. I suggest using one on your IP's page and one here after you've been unblocked (so you can avoid any complications with another unblock request). -- Gestrid (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you'll have to wait. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Gagz7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Classical mechanics

For the record, I tweaked your edit here, please read the edit summary. Thanks, M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 23:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Barrow

Hi, did you see the WP:AN thread on the Isaac Barrow RfC before making your edit? If not you should probably check it out. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: as far as i can see the sources used in the insertion are different from those used in the original discussion, including those used in the RfC @David Eppstein:. the third was the original source that was rejected by the opposition, but without proper reasons.

however, in light of the two new sources (that never "entered" the RfC process, if you will), the third one establishes a large mutual influence between both. if you'd like, maybe James Gregory (mathematician) can be inserted as "influenced" into the infobox (if you want to really stick to the source). Gagz7 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how about you build consensus for the new sources on the article talk page rather than taking sides in the now-blocked IP editor's edit warring? Because after just finishing an RfC on this exact topic, making edits counter to its outcome instead of reopening the discussion is the wrong way to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: it sure seems to me that the discussion was over in RfC (Talk:Isaac Barrow) ~month ago (26 Jun), and User:S Marshall was merely doing his duty as a good wikipedian (samaritan) by "tidying up" & reverting.

IP edit clearly has a tendency to open one-too-many RfC and close them after engaging for a sufficient amount of time (days, instead of weeks), because it seems User:S Marshall's action made him realise he missed the voting process, which he believes would have changed User:S Marshall's objective assessment that preceded his own vote. Further, he seems to have procured the strongest sources yet in his attempt to concretely establish the well-known mutual respect and influence between Gregory and Barrow (see User_talk: S Marshall).

it really is well known that there was an interplay between Barrow and Gregorie, as they shared the publisher John Collins who acted as an intermediary. i suspect if we had access to the full correspondences, there would be even stronger evidence supporting IP edit's claims.

oh, sorry forgot to answer the "why not engage on the Talk page"? because the RfC is closed. you can't reverse it. i tried to do that but the way he inserted [{]{closing}[}] can't be reverted (tags go missing).Gagz7 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you review WP:Three revert rule. You could be blocked for another revert to Isaac Barrow, since you have already reverted the article three times within the last 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Isaac Barrow. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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.
You've been warned before. Stop your edit warring. Gestrid (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dear User:Gestrid, your neutral tone is to be lauded. however if you consult the Talk:Isaac Barrow page, you will see a very large wp:goodfaith effort put forth by IP in order to convince the reverter (User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr) that this insertion was justified, even though IP *knew* (see edit history on the page) that the moment the first insertion was reverted, that no evidence would be sufficient to satisfy the opposition.

the opposition, as expected, refused, opting to coast off the reputation of their institution, instead of upholding whatever integrity it has left by bringing facts to counter the claims. further, the expertise of the individual is, at best, questionable. the grounds for reversions should be made on content, but when they chose to revert IP's initial insertion that used Isaac Barrow's own words to show the mutual respect and influence between himself and gregory, nothing would satisfy this user.Gagz7 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gagz7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there is no attempt at sock puppetry at all, see User:Cuzkatzimhut#sup as an example. i choose to make edits anonymously because i am not seeking attention; i am trying my best to make this site useful. further, no one has answered the main points that started this entire fiasco, which was the lack of expertise and absence of reasoning by the reverter. in contrast, i had given many sources and put in enough time to solidify my case. the sources used for the insertion that is being contested now are stronger and do not require consensus, given their verbose nature. i find it troubling that no participant would acknowledge these facts, instead stating that i am "refusing to accept consensus" on a subject matter that requires expertise. it is nonsensical to allow non-experts to make reversions without any proper reasoning; it is the complete opposite of the conduct necessary to build a good encyclopaedia. User:NeilN.

Decline reason:

You were blocked and continued to edit, evading the block. That will see your account blocked, too. You should address that in any future unblock requests. Huon (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gagz7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

first: i'm not sure if there was a way to request an unblock in the same box, so i made a new one User:Huon User:NeilN. the reason i "circumvented" the temporary ban was because dr eppstein is way too busy to deal with this bickering, and the 2 day ban reflected this sentiment.
i have insisted many times that the new sources being used never came up in RfC, nor should they have (if i had them at the time, but i didn't because i found them when making my case to User:S Marshall) because they are strong enough to warrant infobox insertion. there is no possible way someone can argue this, because there are many many places were infobox "influences" use much weaker citations. should i have waited two days to let the subject cool? sure, but i know that User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr was not going to stop until they got their way. i said that when this entire fiasco began, and also as i kept providing a steady, wealthy stream of facts (see the log in Talk:Isaac Barrow).
the opinions of non-experts on this matter were bourne out of dislike towards my style of discourse, which is their right. however, it is incumbent upon those making "verdicts" on RfC to analyse the expertise of the participants to make a proper assessment of what was presented. facts and evidence supercede opinion and dislike towards other editors. this is not the first time i've experienced this, and i expect such "tiffs" to arise when i make edits. what i do not expect, however, are reversions being made without any basis. i have shown clearly that James Gregory (mathematician) was a strong influence on Isaac Barrow, and the two new sources (in conjunction with the original) reflect the strongest Gagz7 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It doesn't matter that you were open about editing from multiple accounts; one of your accounts was blocked, and you continued to edit with the other. We call this block evasion. I suggest also reading WP:NOTTHEM before making another unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Ohnoitsjamie: can you please tell me how my appeal was wp:notthem? i am referring to the content that caused the infraction. i don't understand why you guys always do this when i'm discussing what caused the problem, which was the other editor's refusal to accept facts. it seems there is a consistent desire to protect casual editors at the expense of those who try to improve sections that would otherwise be non-existent. this is the second time i have seen administrators refuse to deal with the facts which caused the issue, and lead to the more productive contributor being punished for improving people's knowledge.

(Non-administrator comment) Please remember to talk about yourself, not others. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i feel you, User:Gestrid, i feel you. i am trying to stick to my side, but in order to understand my conduct i felt a little information was needed about what provoked it (refusal to compromise, among others). while i may have a strong opinion, i try to incorporate the voices of others when i can. in fact, as i told dr eppstein, i think opening too many RfCs and not closing them is part of the issue (which is a lesson learned, for sure). however, there seems to be an issue with editors respecting expertise of others. i am not anonymous or without credentials, unlike those who challenge the content of my edits (that require expertise to challenge), which is what triggers my persistence.Gagz7 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

y'know dr eppstein, User:Huon, User:Gestrid, the more i think about the infractions i have received, i get more upset. i understand that your hands are tied in some situations, especially when i do not adhere to protocol. but why don't you guys care about the validity and rigorousness of the content as much as you do procedure?
i remember reading someone's wiki talk page stating they were going to quit, where another discouraged them and told them to edit math pages because it is more productive. i must agree, there are so many people i've enjoyed working with (albeit asynchronously) like User:David Eppstein and User:Michael Hardy on Twin circles, User:Zfeinst on certain functional analysis topics (Dual norm, Metrization theorem come to mind) after he and i have gotten "into it" earlier this year, lol.
it seems that those who have the most to contribute to improving others' understanding are often impeded out of spite and dislike towards mannerisms external to the content they contribute. just like Isaac Barrow left mathematics after his legendary treaty on the Fundamental theorem of calculus, it seems that the pursuit of intellectual fulfillment is often hindered by selfish desires to "be right". while the infractions i've received could be seen as a casualty of "trying to be right", i respectfully disagree: a large volume of my edits are with the intent to improve, not "be the best" (i could have gone that route years ago). i feel the lack of alignment in intentions amongst some editors can cause issues like the ones we're experiencing.

i think i get along with most people, even if it may take an occasional prod or two. what i cannot get along with is deliberate hindrance of the truth out of spite or desire to "be right", as i feel the case was in both times i was punished for my refusal to accept anything but the truth. whatever. i think the want to contribute should be innate, and not driven out of the desire to self-affirm one's own intellect (as the case seems to be with many editors, like those who i've gotten into spats with) Gagz7 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

just a chat with User:Elektrik Fanne

hey User:Elektrik Fanne, may i ask why you're calling me a sockpuppet? i have been quite clear about IP and myself being the same individual for some time. i choose to make most of my edits anonymously.

i am just asking because i feel i've made some decently notable contributions to advanced mathematics pages, in hopes of piquing the curiosity of the "younger generation". i feel the content of the edits are quite good, and while you may feel it was wrong for me to "take a stand", i engaged, provided evidence and sound reasoning, where the opposition did not. i find this whole situation quite humourous. my previous infraction was also similar: i was right and suspended for defending the truth. is this not a site focused on knowledge, not opinion? i think i've done a good job of that.

Considering you cannot seem to accept consensus is our fundamental process for building articles, perhaps you'd be happier contributing elsewhere. Citizendium comes to mind as a place where you can present your expert credentials and be recognized with a special role. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please tell me how a consensus is necessary when facts are presented, especially in the influencer's own words? this is pure wp:weasel by you, User:NeilN, and you know it. consensus cannot be built on topics that require a large amount of expertise that a select few on this site have. i stated before that the point of the RfC was to solicit *expert* opinions, to which User:Hgilbert was the ONLY one.

it was a simple insertion reflecting the influence of Gregory on Isaac Barrow. can you please show me other instances on wikipedia where "consensus" consists of a non-expert giving no reason for their reversion, followed by a few non-experts abstaining or being neutral?
before i turned this into a scene that everyone can have a laugh at (hint, it's not me they're laughing at, and believe me there are MANY people reading this), even User:David Eppstein said the word "consensus" "... less clear than what S Marshall wrote...".

so, why not tell me what is wrong with the sources used for the insertion, since they were never used in the RfC, and use Gregory's own words? in conjunction with the original insertion (Barrow's translation alone), it reflects a clear influence that merits infobox. i have seen many other pages with no citations for influences, yet no one says anything about them. Gagz7 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero interest in discussing your content dispute with you. It's your behavior which got you blocked. Fix that and your misconceptions about consensus and RFC's before your block expires, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me, what misconceptions User:NeilN? are you honestly trying to project the notion your view is more in tune with reality than mine? i can assure you that is not the case, but it's clear you've been spoiled with the contributions of the great Lord Kelvin's Transatlantic cable, enjoying the internet a little too much, and at the expense of diverse stimuli that would have better prepared you to give a proper answer (which you don't want to, obviously).

if you looked at my edit history, you'll see i have some expertise in the area of perception and psychiatry (nuclear medicine, specifically). the kind perception manipulation you're engaging reflects more of a wp:sockpuppetry mentality than the one you've accused me of, and it is offensive you would try to do something like this. you should respect other editors' background before trying these cheap psychological tricks (that is what it was).

i have to ask: is it convenient for you to continually ignore the fact that the "consensus" you speak of, was not one at all, especially when one factors in the expertise of the participants? very offensive, but expected because it's the internet.
further, no "consensus" is required to insert influences that are clear from the inserted references, as the latter are supposed to serve as support for the insertion. Gagz7 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to persue a point when everyone else is telling you are wrong is disruptive editing. If everyone else is telling you that you are in the wrong then, for Wikipedia purposes, you are in the wrong no matter how correct you believe yourself to be.

Using multiple accounts is permitted under certain circumstances (though the connection should be declared). Using multiple accounts for non permitted purposes is not permitted even if a connection is declared. Making the same revert to a single article with the same edit summary but different accounts is a non permitted purpose and is sock puppetry regardless of your motives.

However, you were not blocked for sock puppetry (though you almost certainly would have been if it were not for the more serious infraction overtaking it). Your IP address account was blocked for disruptive editing (repeatedly reverting the the same material). Blocks apply to the editor not the user account (i.e. you were blocked from using this account also even though a direct block had not been enacted). That you continued to edit with this account was evading the block placed on your IP account and earned you a three month block (which AFAICT was lenient given your socking history and blocks handed out on similar cases).

That you then chose to use a new account to continue your crusade despite being blocked was as far from a wise move as it is possible to get and the indefinite block was inevitable.

You should note that although your IP address currently has a three month block, any attempt to use it once the block expires (or any other account or IP address) would be block evasion and it will be automatically blocked again. I should also point out that anyone seeing any edit to any article or discussion that is clearly from you is entitled to revert it with no other reason (per WP:BMB). --Elektrik Fanne 13:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning for disruptive edit summaries

If you continue to pollute your edit summaries with pointless crap, your talk page access will be revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i find it comical your wikipedia says you're serious business, yet you won't acknowledge the content of what caused the ban. one can't appeal a three month ban for "evasion" because i never evaded, and it's clear if you look at the scope of my edits there are times where i use my registered account to perform privileged actions my IP account could not. so i do not understand what there is to appeal, if i cannot appeal the handling of the situation which caused me to use my privileged account. can you please clarify or demonstrate a successful appeal of a ban so i can get an idea? thanks Gagz7 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping a login that you use occasionally, when you need to, while otherwise engaged in normal not-logged-in editing, is perfectly ok, although it needs to be clearly identified as an alternative account so that you don't confuse other people into think that you are two different editors. Using your login because you were blocked on your other access mode is not ok; it is block evasion. I hope the difference is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that part is clear. just a sec finishing up my other response. i am not disputing the fact you could infact me for evading a ban, but i do contest being banned under wp:sockpuppet as i don't need a sockpuppet. the latter implies an intent to deceive, where i clearly did not have any such intent, NOR did i deceive. in fact, many of my edits would show the relationship. of course, it is unreasonable to *expect* all wikipedians to peruse edit histories to learn this fact. if you want to ban me for three months, fine, but don't say i used a sockpuppet because that's not true. i'd rather it be wp:evasion. can you at least update the reasoning so that the ban is more dignified, dr eppstein?

"You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abusing multiple accounts." is correct and does not need to be changed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but neither account was used, ever, as a sockpuppet. they are the same person and the edits are reflective of that. even without looking at in-depth insertions of either account, the select abilities of the individuals able to contribute in the areas relevant to the edit history serve as a dead giveaway. there aren't many of "us" out there. there are some, yes, (like dr eppstein) but most are too shy to open themselves up to the POTENTIAL kinds of criticism that ensue from inserting factual edits.

putting the "it's obvious" part aside, sockpuppetry clearly implies the use of more than one account to manipulate the perception of others in order to achieve some end goal (that IS what a sock puppet is), whereas evasion does not reflect any intent to deceive at all. so to say they are the same is incorrect. and to suggest that i was using either account to manipulate others' perception is arguably reflects more of the wp:sockpuppetry mentality than what i've shown in my defense. Gagz7 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

extra-wikular (like curricular, get it? lol) activities

yo dr eppstein, am i allowed to holler at people from my talk page? like, if i wanna give some peanut galleryesque input on the daily going-ons of wikipedia like this, is that allowed? as long as it's not disruptive and confined to my page?

maybe holler at some participants live from my talk page, feel me? lol Gagz7 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to sock as DefinitelyMaybeStandingOnTheShoulderOfGiants. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page access is still revoked. Your block is now indefinite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Gagz7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17236 was submitted on Dec 31, 2016 22:24:36. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Gagz7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17243 was submitted on Jan 02, 2017 04:01:10. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]