User talk:ThaneHeins

Conflict of interest

Hello ThaneHeins. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Perepiteia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in Perepiteia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Perepiteia. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for throwing so much information in your talk page all at once, but it seems that nobody had thought to warn when you started making your first edits. To make a long story short, wikipedia articles should reflect the "mainstream" scientific point of view, and your edits are in disagreement with WP:FRINGE.

(Also, please, check your edits to the talk page, you can't go and put your own comments in the middle of other people's comments. Now it looks like other editors wrote those words themselves. This is considered very impolite in wikipedia (and in any other wiki-based website). You are supposed to reply with your own comments, signed with your username so people can know who is making the comment. Either right below the comment you are replying to, or below the last comment of the section. The talk page is now a mess, so I'll go and try to put your comments in the proper place, so it's clear who is saying what, and who you are replying to.) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't know who is the guy writing behind the pseudonym in the skeptic magazine, but wikipedia pages shouldn't be used to deride living people without a reliable source explaining that this living persons really did what you say that he did (because of the policy on biographies of living people, which forbids unsourced negative information about living persons in any page in all of wikipedia). Please keep out of wikipedia the real life personal issues that you have with other persons. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Perepiteia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hardy Heck (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to Edit warring noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Perepiteia. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but...

I'm sorry about this, but the sources consider your invention as a perpetual motion machine, so the wikipedia article should also consider it that way (for example, search the name of your invention here and here. You already have access to the sources listed in the article, and you can read by yourself that what I am saying is correct. That the inventor considers that the sources are wrong is a different matter. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked again, since you continued your disruptive behaviour, this time for a week. Please don't try to evade this block by editing logged-out this time; if you do, you will be excluded from the project indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]