User talk:74.4.222.208

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
System-users.svg An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by Jamiemichelle.
Please refer to contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

Who are you? Why are you doing this? -- Tim Daly (Axiom Lead Developer)

Daly, you were told above why your edits are inappropriate. Please refrain from redoing your aforesaid edits. Such actions by you are now delving into the territory of vandalism.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Axiom (computer algebra system). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Tiptoety talk 23:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Dispute referral[edit]

You obviously won't stop this behavior. You won't identify yourself. You won't give any reason for redundant information on the page. You have already been banned once for reverting

I have explained that I'm the lead developer on the project and thus in contact with many Axiom developers and in a position to know the project status and history. I have asked you to contact me (daly@axiom-developer.org). I guess I'm going to have to go to dispute resolution. The wiki editors will have to decide.

Daly (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Tim

That is quite incorrect. I have not been banned. And as my edit summary made clear, the Wikipedia editors already decided in my favor: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. So please stop making false accusations.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Existence of God. 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. -- lucasbfr talk 13:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I have decided to block you because I am concerned by your contributions. You appear to be engaging in a combative manner to force the articles to adhere to your point of view, and label other editor's good faith attempts to edit the article as vandalism. Please keep in mind that "Vandalism" has a very precise definition here, and good faith edits are not a part of it. I urge you to please find consensus for your edits on Existence of God and Comparison of computer algebra systems discussion pages before editing these articles again. Please also keep in mind that administrators do not decide which version of an article is the "wrong version". The fact that User:Daly was warned for edit warring does not give you carte blanche to prevent any further edits to the article, as you appear to be doing here. -- lucasbfr talk 13:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

74.4.222.208 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

During mid-discussion, Jeffro77 deleted the entire subsection of the article in question, while giving an obviously false statement (as well as utterly bizarre due to the absurd degree of its obvious falsity) that the subsection didn't have anything to do with God, when in fact the subsection clearly states that the author of the Omega Point Theory maintains it is a physical proof of God's existence while giving multiple citations to said.

So aforesaid bad-faith edit by Jeffro77 does fall under the precise definition of vandalism given by Wikipedia: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated."

One can also see on the Talk page for said article where Jeffro77 makes numerous false statemets pertaining to the subsection's subject, for which there is no excuse due to the information being readily at hand within either the subsection under question itself or in the hyperlinked Wikipedia articles on the subject. What this demonstrates is that Jeffro77 made a knee-jerk reaction to attempt to diminish this subsection--and indeed, eventually to censor it altogether--due to his intense dislike of its subject matter: i.e., he knew nothing about the Omega Point Theory other than that its author, Prof. Frank J. Tipler, maintains it's a physical proof of God's existence, and that was enough for Jeffro77 to know that he was dead-set against it, whereupon he proceeded in his attempts to diminish the subsection, and eventually he censored it outright by deleting it entirely while giving the bizarrely false statement that the subsection had nothing to do with God.

So as the evidence shows, I was the one who was maintaining this subsection against the blatant bad-faith vandalism of Jeffro77.

Regarding the edits pertaining to the subject of computer algebra systems, the Wikipedia administrators decided in my favor in the sense that they agreed that Daly's deletion of information that was in the two articles in question was inappropriate, and as the edit change which you link to demonstrates, I was putting back information that had been there which Daly deleted even after he was warned not to do that by the Wikipedia administration.

I attempt to preserve relevant information that's important to its subject. Sometimes others, for various reasons, would like to diminish that information or delete it altogether because they dislike people knowing about it. In the case of Daly (lead developer on the Axiom project), it appears that he didn't like the software fork information being as apparent as it was, as apparently he doesn't want to lose users and developers to the other projects.

The Wikipedia administration's decision on the Daly case was the correct one, as Wikipedia should not be the playground of those who want to restrict information due to their distaste for it.

Due to the foregoing reasons, the judicious and proper course would be to unblock me--74.4.222.208 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We don't like edit warring. We don't care what the rationale is, and your accusations of vandalism are not valid; this is a content dispute, not vandalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:08, 5 December 2008 (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.

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Existence of God and false accusations of others in vandalism. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ruslik (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

74.4.222.208 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Ruslik0 is incorrect in his block of me. I wasn't edit waring as defined by Wikipedia: I made one reversion of an edit today.

Furthermore, Ruslik0 is incorrect that I made a false accusation regarding the objective fact that Jeffro77 is engaging in vandalism: Jeffro77 replaced this entry--which is very similar to the version that existed there since October 31, 2008, with some improvements--with this entry, giving the excuse in his edit summary of "WP:FRINGE," which doesn't even make sense as an explanation for his edits: i.e., deletion of a number of citations; deletion of the information on theologian Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg's defense of the theology of the Omega Point Theory; etc. As well, there's no need for the large displayed quote, as the previous entry already stated that Prof. David Deutsch doesn't agree that the Omega Point is God; furthermore, Jeffro77's edit deletes the mention of the fact that Prof. Deutsch endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory.

In addtion, Jeffro77's edit isn't even literate, as he give the following mangled citation to Prof. Deutsch: "Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here". Whereas the version before was properly cited: "David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN 0713990619. Extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here and here."

As stated above, Jeffro77's excuse in his edit summary doesn't even make sense, as it doesn't explain why he would delete mention of Prof. Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory, particularly since Jeffro77 himself called Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own edit (i.e., that statement wasn't there before): of which argues against the notion that Jeffro77 considers the physics of the Omega Point Theory as fringe. Further, Jeffro77 deleted mention of the fact that Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the leading theologians in the world, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and Tipler's position that the Omega Point is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God.

Additionally, while Jeffro77's "fringe" claim's aren't even relevant to his edit, they have already been refuted numerous times. Indeed, Jeffro77 himself refutes this claim in this very edit of his: to state again, therein Jeffro77 himself called Prof. Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own words. So obviously Jeffro77 himself must consider Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory to be noteworthy, and yet he deleted this endoresement in an area where Jeffro77 himself agrees that Deutsch is eminently qualified and replaced it with a large displayed quotation regarding a matter that Deutsch has no qualification or erudition in, even though the previous version already clearly mentioned that Deutsch disagrees that Omega Point is God. Moreover, in this edit Jeffro77 deletes all mention of the fact that an actual trained theologian, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the world's leading theologians, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory.

As well, Prof. Tipler himself has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and his identification of the Omega Point as being God in a peer-reviewed academic journal: see Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253. Regarding the physics, Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory in many peer-reviewed science journals, including a number of the leading physics journals such as Reports on Progress in Physics (one of the world's leading physics journals) and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals). The Wikipedia article on the Omega Point Theory lists seven different mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals in which Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published (and that's not including the Zygon journal). That is quite a significant amount.

Jeffro77 is out of control. Given his mangled and illiterate Deutsch citation, he doesn't even coherently know what he's doing: he's simply wildly deleting information he dislikes, like a bull on a rampage in a china shop.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Talk about yourself, not about others. And at less length. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2008 (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.

In reply to Martin Hogbin: you state in your edit summary for the "Existence of God" article: "Undid revision 256247715 by 74.4.222.208 (talk) Difference is of opinion is not vandalism. Omega point is fringe." That claim doesn't even make coherent sense, besides the fact that you replaced a literate entry with an illiterate edit.

Even if one incorrectly thinks that the Omega Point Theory is "fringe," that has no logical connection with the edit that Jeffro77 made. Jeffro77 replaced this entry--which is very similar to the version that existed there since October 31, 2008, with some improvements--with this entry, giving the excuse in his edit summary of "WP:FRINGE," which doesn't even make sense as an explanation for his edits: i.e., deletion of a number of citations; deletion of the information on theologian Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg's defense of the theology of the Omega Point Theory; etc. As well, there's no need for the large displayed quote, as the previous entry already stated that Prof. David Deutsch doesn't agree that the Omega Point is God; furthermore, Jeffro77's edit deletes the mention of the fact that Prof. Deutsch endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory.

In addtion, Jeffro77's edit isn't even literate, as he give the following mangled citation to Prof. Deutsch: "Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here". Whereas the version before was properly cited: "David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN 0713990619. Extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here and here."

As stated above, Jeffro77's excuse in his edit summary doesn't even make sense, as it doesn't explain why he would delete mention of Prof. Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory, particularly since Jeffro77 himself called Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own edit (i.e., that statement wasn't there before): of which argues against the notion that Jeffro77 considers the physics of the Omega Point Theory as fringe. Further, Jeffro77 deleted mention of the fact that Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the leading theologians in the world, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and Tipler's position that the Omega Point is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God.

Additionally, while Jeffro77's "fringe" claim's aren't even relevant to his edit, they have already been refuted numerous times. Indeed, Jeffro77 himself refutes this claim in this very edit of his: to state again, therein Jeffro77 himself called Prof. Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own words. So obviously Jeffro77 himself must consider Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory to be noteworthy, and yet he deleted this endoresement in an area where Jeffro77 himself agrees that Deutsch is eminently qualified and replaced it with a large displayed quotation regarding a matter that Deutsch has no qualification or erudition in, even though the previous version already clearly mentioned that Deutsch disagrees that Omega Point is God. Moreover, in this edit Jeffro77 deletes all mention of the fact that an actual trained theologian, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the world's leading theologians, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory.

As well, Prof. Tipler himself has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and his identification of the Omega Point as being God in a peer-reviewed academic journal: see Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253. Regarding the physics, Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory in many peer-reviewed science journals, including a number of the leading physics journals such as Reports on Progress in Physics (one of the world's leading physics journals) and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals). The Wikipedia article on the Omega Point Theory lists seven different mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals in which Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published (and that's not including the Zygon journal). That is quite a significant amount.

Jeffro77 is out of control. Given his mangled and illiterate Deutsch citation, he doesn't even coherently know what he's doing: he's simply wildly deleting information he dislikes, like a bull on a rampage in a china shop.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph is a clear demonstration of your manner to conduct discussions. You constantly accuse others of bad faith, of ignorance, and of vandalism. You call others bullies without any reason. I read the discussion on the talk page and all other editors strictly criticized only your edits and arguments. You instead accused them of making false statements and of bad faith editing. You should stop such behavior. Ruslik (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Yet my last sentence in my foregoing post is perfectly veridical. Even now Jeffro77 (and you) are unaware of the illiterate nature of his edit even though I reproduced it for him (from the "Existence of God" Talk page): "The Deutsch citation is entirely correct, and the quoted text is available at the linked article in the citation. Failing to use the exact citation supplied by you is immaterial." But as anyone who is literate can see, his citation is incorrect: "Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe," with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler; also available here".
"Chapter 14" of what book? By whom?
Nor did I ever call anyone at Wikipedia a bully. That's a false claim by you. You therein protest too much (cf. William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene II, line 240).
As well, I don't merely make charges, I prove what I state. Jeffro77 and Ilkali both repeatedly made false claims regarding the subject for which there is no excuse due to the information being readily at hand within either the subsection under question itself or in the hyperlinked Wikipedia articles. Neither of them knew the slightest thing about the Omega Point Theory other than that they knew that its author maintains that it physically proves God's existence, which was all it took to rile them up. While lacking knowledge about a subject is not itself an error, what is completely uncalled for is to have vociferous opinions on an issue while remaining in that state of ignorance.
That's the current state of this matter. Those who have repeatedly shown a willingness to make factually false statements on the matter, and whose ignorance regarding the subject is nearly complete, now have their illiterate and clownishly censorial, and indeed illogical, edit showing.
Regarding the illogic of the edit, Jeffro77's excuse in his edit summary doesn't even make sense, as it doesn't explain why he deleted mention of Prof. Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory, particularly since Jeffro77 himself called Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in his own edit (i.e., that statement wasn't there before): of which argues against the notion that Jeffro77 considers the physics of the Omega Point Theory as fringe. Further, Jeffro77 deleted mention of the fact that Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the leading theologians in the world, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and Tipler's position that the Omega Point is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God.
So by Jeffro77's own words, he must consider Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory to be noteworthy, and yet he deleted mention of this endoresement in an area where Jeffro77 himself agrees that Deutsch is eminently qualified and replaced it with a large displayed quotation regarding a matter that Deutsch has no qualification or erudition in, even though the previous version already clearly mentioned that Deutsch disagrees that Omega Point is God. Moreover, in this edit Jeffro77 deletes all mention of the fact that an actual trained theologian, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the world's leading theologians, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory.
Jeffro77's edit is so ridiculously biased and illogical that it's a sick joke.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's more illiterate text by Jeffro77, in response to me on the "Existence of God" Talk page: "Given that an edit cannot read, I suppose that yes, my edit isn't 'literate'."

So not only does Jeffro77 not know what a proper citation consists of, Jeffro77 also doesn't know the meanings of the word "literate," which is comically fitting. To quote one definition of "literate" from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Houghton Mifflin Company, Fourth Edition, 2000): "3. Well-written; polished: a literate essay."

The proceedings regarding the article edits would be absurdist comedy if Jeffro77 and his defenders were regarded with the proper weight befitting their knowledge on this subject and their propensity to make false claims regarding it. But for now it remains a sick joke.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You apparently have little command of satire.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You have little command of the English language. Regarding satire, if your intention was to make yourself look foolish, then you've succeeded.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No one cares about your longwinded rant, and I have little regard for your opinion. The other editors have clearly demonstrated that my edits have been completely appropriate with regard to the purpose of the article. I will amend the title of the article in the reference, however the superfluous detail suppliied by your preferred version is unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You care about it, as apodictically demonstrated by the fact that you responded and that you changed one of your less-than-literate edits.
Regarding the bias and illogic of your edit, the excuse in your edit summary doesn't make sense, as it doesn't explain why you deleted mention of Prof. Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory, particularly since you yourself called Deutsch an "eminent physicist" in your own edit (i.e., that statement wasn't there before): of which argues against the notion that you consider the physics of the Omega Point Theory as fringe. Further, you deleted mention of the fact that Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the leading theologians in the world, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory and Tipler's position that the Omega Point is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God.
So by your own words, you must consider Deutsch's endorsement of the physics of the Omega Point Theory to be noteworthy, and yet you deleted mention of this endoresement in an area where you yourself agree that Deutsch is eminently qualified and replaced it with a large displayed quotation regarding a matter that Deutsch has no qualification or erudition in, even though the previous version already clearly mentioned that Deutsch disagrees that Omega Point is God. Moreover, in this edit you delete all mention of the fact that an actual trained theologian, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, who is one of the world's leading theologians, has defended the theology of the Omega Point Theory.
Your edit is so ridiculously biased and illogical that it's a sick joke.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Just because you happen to get one minor detail right in your otherwise biased, longwinded, and repetetive (mostly cut-and-paste) coments doesn't give any of your other comments any credibility. (I had a broken clock once that was right twice a day.) The fact remains that the article will not be as you want it because your version is quite definitely fringe, and has no support from other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Concensus with other editors clearly indicates that I am right and you are wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
That's the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's imagine for 2 seconds (more time than it actually deserves) that you are actually correct - that Tipler's theory actually is correct and that the Omega Point is actually God. Even if that were the case, it is still not supported by physicists broadly and remains a fringe theory. It may be proven in the future, but as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, your view is still inappropriate for the article.
You have accused me of vandalism, illiteracy, bad faith, being out of control, and other ridiculous claims; however other editors, including the user who responded to the RFC and the admins who dealt with your unblock request, have agreed with my content for the article and that your other charges are false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Information.svg You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiemichelle. Thank you. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)