426:
war" when in fact the record shows that I made a grand total of three edits in the course of three days, each of which simply restored the article to the consensus version that had been painstakingly arrived at over a year ago, and in each instance I wrote a explanation of the edit, pointing back to the archived discussion (which includes the verifiable evidence in public records). Please note that after the FIRST of these three edits, your friend Akuvar accused me of "vandalism", and began searching for some administrator who he could enlist to get me banned. Now, I think it's fair to say that ONE reversion of an article, back to a consensus version that had existed for over year, and that had been arrived at by consensus of muyltiple editors based on verifiable documentary evidence, is certainly not "vandalism". Then you said you blocked me for not discussing edits on the discussion page, which was false. Then you said I had not given verifiable data to support my edits, which was false. Then you claimed that my preferred version was not the result of consensus, which was false. Then when all these falsehoods were exposed, you ended up saying the justification for blocking me was "if you managed to get into a dispute with a neutral administrator over this petty issue, I can only imagine your arguments with the involved editors of this article." In other words, now my offense that justifies being blocked is simply that you blocked me!
284:
since you agree that you don't have the slightest interest in this topic, and you know nothing about the merits of the argument, I'm not sure why you have interjected yourself, by blocking the editor (me) who is trying to uphold
Knowledge (XXG) standards for verifiability, while allowing the crackpots like Akuvar to have free reign over the article. You seem to completely misunderstand the principle of verifiability on which Knowledge (XXG) is based. If I Tom Van Flandern called himself The Emperor of the Universe, would you favor referring to him in the article as "The Emperor of the Universe"? Of course not, because there is no verifiable source that supports this. It is not my responsibility to prove that he was NOT the Emperor of the Universe, it is the responsibility of anyone who wants to call him that in the article to give a verifiable and REPUTABLE source for that title. Likewise, if Van Flandern called himself the president and CEO of Meta Research, but if the public records of incorporation show that "Meta Research" was nothing but Van Flandern's vanity title, and it did not exist other than himself, and his web site was purely set up by himself, then would you favor dignifying his web site as anything other than a personal web site? I hope the answer is no.
191:
discussion. I think recerived a message from
Materialscientist warning me not to edit wikipedia articles without discussing on the discussion page. I answered that I HAD justified my edit on the discussion page - whereas the editor who reverted my edit (and lodged a complaint about me) had not. I then re-iterated the justification for the consensus wording on the Discussion page and restored it again. Then I was blocked. Still the editor who is trying to promote crackpot pseudoscience has not given any justification for his edit, but I have been blocked for not justifying my edits. This seems bizarre to me. I don't think blocking me was in any way justified. I have carefully and patiently exlained each of my edits. I have violated no rules. To the contrary, I have simply been working to ensure that Wiki standards of verifiability, no original research, and no promotion of person web sites or personal POVs.
336:
information. If someone makes a personal web site, but calls it an institutional web site, this does not make it an instutitional web site. Now, you say that the name XXX of Van
Flandern's web site was "officially approved by corresponding authorities", but it isn't clear what you mean. Anyone can call their web site anything they want. You could make a personal web site and call it "The American Institute for Advanced Studies in Theoretical Research", but this doesn't confer on your website the status of an instutitional website. It is still your personal web site.
43:
372:
supports my edit (which is really just restoring the consensus version of the article as it has existed for the past year). In contrast, the editor you are supporting (Akuvar) has been attempting to change the article from its consensus version without giving any justification on the
Discussion page. Your actions here have been misguided and unwarranted and contrary to Knowledge (XXG) policy.
105:
535:
23:
353:
Look, if someone wants to edit the article to note that Van
Flandern called his personal web site "Meta Research", that would be okay. What I consider objectionable is the suggestion that it was an institutional web site, or that Meta Research was anything other than what the verifiable data shows it
308:
A short answer is WP is about verifiable data, not about truth. Whatever company XXX was in "reality", its XXX name was officially approved by corresponding authorities, and wherever our emotions are, we have to reflect that. After all, we are talking here merely about naming an external link; if you
283:
Hello. You keep referring "they" and "their" and "themselves" (plural), but the point is that the "Meta
Research" organization only consisted of a single individual, namely, Tom Van Flandern. He was a a pseudo-science crackpot who PRETENDED to belong to an "organization", but it was a fantasy. Now,
371:
I should also mention that your "justification" for blocking me was that I had made an edit without explaining my edit on the discussion page, but the record plainly shows that I carefully and patiently explained each of my edits on the
Discussion page, pointing to the verifiable documentation that
425:
You say "many" of my statements have been disproven, but you decline to state even one such disproven statement. Could you cite just one? In contrast, I've explicitly given the documented evidence disproving your substantative assertions. For example, you asserted that I was engaged in an "edit
451:
You clearly are not a neutral observer. and your actions have been arbitrary and capricious (at best). Knowledge (XXG) editing is supposed to be based on the rules and policies of
Knowledge (XXG), not on the personal whims of some individual administrator. All my edits have been fully consistent
293:
I really suggest you consult with some scientifically literate people on the subject of Tam Van
Flandern, and ask them if they believe there is any verifiable evidence that "Meta Research" consisted of anything other than Tom Van Flandern himself. If you're truly not interested, then maybe you
190:
I made an edit to a page, actually just restoring a page to what it had been for many months, and I gave the justification for it in the
Discussion page, pointing out that the issue had been discussed in detail a year ago, and the current wording in the article was the consensus result of that
335:
I don't understand your comments. The verifiable data that has been documented on the Discussion page is that Van Flandern's web site is a purely personal web site, not an institutional web site. Knowledge (XXG) has a well-known policy against using personal web sites as reputable sources of
390:
article after your current block expires. This is a routine and polite administrative measure to avoid you being blocked from editing other WP pages; please respect that. It is my obligation to be neutral, and I must note the evidence I have read by now disproves many statements you've made.
252:
Regarding the link name. As I mentioned at the talk page of the article, I have no slightest interest in this topic, but as long as organization calls themselves XXX, wikipedia has to respect that and quote XXX as their name. Unless one has strong evidence supported by third-party
354:
was, which is a fantasy research organization, fabricated by Van Flandern to pretend that he was backed by some reputable instutition. I believe all my edits have been quite consistent with Knowledge (XXG) policy, whereas your edits have been contrary to Knowledge (XXG) policy.
485:. Please reply here, focus your comments, do avoid any personal statements regarding WP editors, but comment on the article content (if you wish to do so). Your help in improving the WP content would be appreciated, comments in line of the above reply would be not. Thank you.
210:, which lately seems to be your sole interest on Knowledge (XXG). Your understanding of our policy on verifiability and reliable sources leaves much to be desired, and your hostility to the subject of the article makes us wonder how you can write about him neutrally.
26:
I am not an editor of that article, but an administrator who came there to look at an edit war which you're involved to. I do strongly suggest you refrain from reverting other editors and discuss the issue at the talk pages.
561:
202:
When I checked the history of your contributions to this article, I was not impressed. It looks to me like long-term edit warring. I note that you have made personal attacks against other editors like
452:
with Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines. The edits of you and Akuvar have been inconsistent with those policies. How does one go about lodging a formal complaint against an administrator?
549:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also
560:
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to
386:
May I ask you to (i) focus your writing; (ii) provide factual evidence for your statements (such as diffs of the edits and direct links) (iii) avoid editing the
309:
managed to get into a dispute with a neutral administrator over this petty issue, I can only imagine your arguments with the involved editors of this article.
244:
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.
206:
on your own talk page during the very time that you were appealing this block. When this 24-hour block expires, I suggest you take a break from editing
229:
145:
524:
63:
504:
of personal information. Please refrain from such behavior as it is inconsistent with the basic WP policies and may result in
140:
79:
542:
257:
that XXX is YYY (and even then it would be questionable), one should not change this as you did. This is not a matter of
118:
50:
513:
490:
396:
314:
270:
94:
32:
112:
117:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
500:
After I wrote this, I noted that your last edit, apart from personal attack on other wikipedia users, contained
550:
509:
486:
392:
310:
266:
159:
90:
28:
258:
89:
I have specifically and kindly asked you to refrain from reverting edits without discussing them first.
585:. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --
590:
215:
59:
453:
373:
295:
123:
501:
571:
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
546:
528:
482:
478:
387:
238:
207:
582:
572:
565:
554:
67:
586:
211:
42:
262:
254:
75:
71:
55:
541:
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for
294:
should ask someone else, who is at least slightly interested, to look into the matter.
575:
template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
203:
534:
22:
562:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Tom Van Flandern (2nd nomination)
594:
517:
494:
461:
400:
381:
318:
303:
274:
219:
98:
36:
533:
103:
41:
226:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
70:. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek
246:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
173:
169:
163:
154:
150:
136:
132:
128:
74:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
111:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
78:. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may
54:from editing for a short time to prevent further
261:(which I don't see by the way), but a matter of
8:
62:. During a dispute, you should first try to
581:This is an automatic notification by a
508:and indefinite block of your account.
7:
14:
58:caused by your engagement in an
21:
477:You are invited to comment on
1:
462:16:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
401:02:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
382:15:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
319:06:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
304:05:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
275:05:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
220:04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
99:04:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
82:by adding the text {{unblock|
64:discuss controversial changes
37:04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
595:01:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
555:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
545:. The nominated article is
518:05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
495:01:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
115:, who declined the request.
610:
551:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
568:with four tildes (~~~~).
230:guide to appealing blocks
457:
377:
299:
481:proposed update of the
538:
108:
46:
573:articles for deletion
537:
160:change block settings
107:
45:
564:. Please be sure to
566:sign your comments
539:
109:
72:dispute resolution
47:
510:Materialscientist
487:Materialscientist
393:Materialscientist
311:Materialscientist
267:Materialscientist
91:Materialscientist
80:contest the block
29:Materialscientist
601:
547:Tom Van Flandern
529:Tom Van Flandern
483:Tom Van Flandern
388:Tom Van Flandern
255:reliable sources
243:
237:
208:Tom Van Flandern
179:
177:
166:
148:
146:deleted contribs
106:
84:your reason here
25:
17:Tom Van Flandern
609:
608:
604:
603:
602:
600:
599:
598:
532:
249:
241:
235:
234:, then use the
223:
193:
167:
157:
143:
126:
119:blocking policy
104:
87:
76:page protection
19:
12:
11:
5:
607:
605:
531:
527:nomination of
522:
521:
520:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
288:
287:
286:
285:
278:
277:
224:
200:
196:Decline reason
188:
184:Request reason
181:
102:
48:You have been
40:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
606:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
574:
569:
567:
563:
558:
556:
552:
548:
544:
536:
530:
526:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
463:
459:
455:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
402:
398:
394:
389:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
320:
316:
312:
307:
306:
305:
301:
297:
292:
291:
290:
289:
282:
281:
280:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
250:
248:
247:
240:
233:
231:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
199:
197:
192:
187:
185:
180:
175:
171:
165:
161:
156:
152:
147:
142:
138:
137:global blocks
134:
133:active blocks
130:
125:
120:
116:
114:
113:administrator
101:
100:
96:
92:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
52:
44:
39:
38:
34:
30:
24:
16:
579:Please note:
578:
577:
570:
559:
540:
505:
476:
259:WP:CONSENSUS
245:
227:
225:
201:
195:
194:
189:
183:
182:
155:creation log
122:
110:
88:
83:
49:
20:
204:User:Akuvar
587:Erwin85Bot
212:EdJohnston
151:filter log
86:}} below.
56:disruption
506:immediate
228:read the
170:checkuser
129:block log
68:consensus
66:and seek
543:deletion
454:6324xxxx
374:6324xxxx
296:6324xxxx
141:contribs
124:6324xxxx
60:edit war
239:unblock
164:unblock
51:blocked
502:outing
553:and "
263:WP:OR
232:first
591:talk
557:").
514:talk
491:talk
479:this
458:talk
397:talk
378:talk
315:talk
300:talk
271:talk
216:talk
95:talk
33:talk
583:bot
525:AfD
174:log
121:).
593:)
516:)
493:)
460:)
399:)
380:)
317:)
302:)
273:)
265:.
242:}}
236:{{
218:)
198::
186::
168:•
162:•
158:•
153:•
149:•
144:•
139:•
135:•
131:•
97:)
35:)
589:(
512:(
489:(
456:(
395:(
376:(
313:(
298:(
269:(
214:(
178:)
176:)
172:(
127:(
93:(
31:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
