User talk:Lyndonashmore

October 2009[edit]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to User talk:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Alan (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues, you will be blocked from editing. HalfShadow (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Lyndonashmore. You have new messages at N5iln's talk page.
Message added 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Alan (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about a user page with critical remarks of your physics[edit]

Lyndon, in wikipedia you are expected to show some attempt to speak to another editor in an attempt to resolve problems you may have. You have never even asked me for a "right of reply", or recorded anything in the talk page associated with the page your have been blanking.

Here's my position on the matter. The user page User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues was set up long ago in attempt to facilitate a communication between editors having a dispute about content on various physics pages; I became involved initially because of the biography of Fritz Zwicky. W. Kehler was having a lot of trouble communicating and working with the wikipedia community, and I had tried to help with that; eventually using this page as a way of trying to structure communications due to difficulties Kehler was having with using English and also the normal wikipedia conventions. It may have helped, or maybe not. Your own theories of tired light came up as an issue.

My position is that there is nothing "libelous" in this page. The comments are about your ideas in physics; not about you personally. Furthermore, I do not see anything there for which a "right of reply" would apply. I am prepared to listen to a case for "right of reply"; but it seems to me that you have your position set out already in your own webpage and your paper at Galilean Electrodynamics, both of which are linked at the page. Your paper is full of elementary errors in physics, and you do not have an automatic right of reply at every page where critical comments concerning your paper have appeared.

The page you have been blanking only mentions you in a subsection of the page, as one minor issue among many that Kehler had raised. It is not a mainstream page; it is in a minor backwater of wikipedia. I have made no attempt to publicize this page, but I do keep it on file, as a record of the attempt to help W. Kehler use wikipedia.

You may reply to me here, or at the talk page of the article; see the section User talk:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues#Lyndon objects which I had already added for you to use, if you wished.

Merely blanking the whole page doesn't work; I'll revert it. Trying to involve other editors while you've made no attempt to express your concerns to me is likely to backfire. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues. HamburgerRadio (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- Menti fisto 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who is telling porkies?[edit]

You say the page was set up for editors to discuss issues. But i have it from Wikipedia that and I quote.

Dear Lyndon,

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that the people in question are not editors, and do not act on behalf of Wikipedia.

I can confirm that you can redress your complaints by way of dispute resolutionm, which I linked in my previous email.

I can confirm that the page referred to is indeed a user page.

Yours sincerely, Joe Daly I believe that someone is lying here. Who is it? So Sylas Real name address from now on . I demand your name and contact details. Don't hide behind an alias or is it that you know you are in error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndonashmore (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the formal wikipedia policy on privacy and names. See WP:REALNAME. You can speak to me here and now, in wikipedia. I have given some guidelines on how you can do that below. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way. No-one is lying. The email is true, and so is the remark that the user page in question was set up for certain editors to discuss some particular issues and conflicts that arose in editing of the main encyclopedia.

None of us act on behalf of wikipedia. It's a bit odd that John Daly say we are not "editors". Probably he means we are not employed by wikipedia, but merely private individuals who have come and used the tools available here, and have contributed to the encyclopedia. Within wikipedia we are all usually called "editors" -- you also -- but we have no special authority or privileges.
You can indeed use the dispute resolution procedures. Your problem is that you have so far failed to make any attempt to avail yourself of the procedures for dealing with your concerns.
The page you object to is indeed a user page.
It was set up by me for certain editors to discuss some specific issues. I set it up as a way of facilitating discussions with W. Kehler, who was having problems working with the encyclopedia, and making complaints in all kinds of inappropriate places. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from complaining[edit]

I don't believe it, Here we have a page that is is in contentention. AND what does Wikipedia do? Stop the complainant from posting! So wikipedia rules allow someone to post false claims against one and when one complains, allegedly, the person who posted the original false claim can ban you even though they are not editors and do not act on behalf of wikipedia. I feel a scandal coming on. Cheers, Lyndon

banned from appealing[edit]

I have tried to appeal my ban (apparently imposed because i objected to what i believe are libellous statements published by Wikipedia about me)but I am unable to appeal because I am banned!!! I smell money! cheers lyndon

You were given a temporary block because you persisted in removing an entire page. That's it. I did not apply the block or ask for it, and the administrator who applied it probably knows almost nothing about you, or me, or notions of tired light. A block like this happens pretty automatically for any editors who just delete stuff willy nilly because they have some personal problem with it. Essentially, your problem is that you were NOT objecting. You were just riding in and deleting stuff without any attempt to express objections or say what is wrong with the page.

There's nothing wrong with objecting to a page; and you'll be able to do that when your block expires. But you need to bear a few points in mind about conventions and guidelines at wikipedia.

You can't just remove stuff you don't like. Neither do any of us have a right to put up anything we like. It's all meant to be related to the work of building a community encyclopedia. Registered editors (you are also a registered editor) have a user space where you can put some material that is relevant to the wikipedia project. The particular page you are objecting to is essentially an archive of a user talk page, holding a record of a discussion with W. Kehler, relating to edits on various physics pages.

If you have an objection, you will need to be clear about what precisely is the problem. Merely disagreeing with the page or noting that it includes remarks critical of material you have written is not likely to be enough.

You are expected to work with others in the community. This means that your first avenue is to express your objection to me, since the page appears within my user space. I have already put up a section of the talk page for you to use. Please feel free to go ahead and state your objections plainly within the section User talk:Duae Quartunciae/W. Kehler/Issues#Lyndon objects. Or you can do so on my talk page (User talk:Duae Quartunciae), or here on your talk page. If you make no attempt to speak to me first, this will not help when you try to complain to others.

If you make a sincere effort to deal with a dispute with a fellow editor, and remain unsatisfied, then there are other actions you can take. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

My contact details are private. I edit here using the label "Duae Quartunciae". That is how you should address me here. If you find that my use of a pseudonym devalues my contributions, that is fine by me. But wikipedia formally recognizes that there are very good general reasons not to use your own name in wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names.

You must not post my private information. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information. Any attempt to do so is grounds for an immediate block.

You should also review the wikipedia policy on legal threats. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. You are welcome to use the many avenues wikipedia has in place for resolving disagreements, and generally they are far more likely to work for you. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Lyndonashmore. You have new messages at N5iln's talk page.
Message added 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

My participation in this matter is now concluded. Alan (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy not applied[edit]

Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-enwikimedia.org.

I have politely contacted info and gotin touch with Joe, Nothing happened. Clearly. The policy clearly states that the material should be deleted immediately. When the policy was not applied the only route left open to me was to apply wikipedia policy myself and delete the material. That lead to my getting the ban. Why was wikipedia policy not applied?

It is not libel to say that there are errors in a paper. The page does not attack you personally or libel you in any way. It describes some errors in a paper you have written. An administrator is looking at some items in the page now. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost sorted[edit]

Thanks to Wikipedia for sorting out the problems. There is just one sentence which i request needs changing and if that is done all is sorted out (which I am sure it will be). As always, I am happy to discuss my ideas and theories anywhere, any time, providingg I have the right of reply. Cheers, lyndon