Knowledge (XXG)

User talk:Wwhat

Source 📝

404:
is in my case a fanatic fight of a group against reality. This is NOT conservapidia where truth is some optional thing, and where some cause overrides that. My edit was a simply adding 'theoretical' before the words 'big bang', I also created an entry on the discussion page of the article in question immediately when it became clear people fought my edit, but instead of responding there people repeatedly undid my edit without valid reasoning (ie saying the big bang theory is not a theory only because you like it so much is not scientifically valid position), only after I was blocked did the one pivotal in my block feign a reasonable attitude by editing the discussion page, knowing full well that I cannot respond while blocked, I do think that that user's action should be reviewed in that regard for a possible temporary block of that user, since he clearly does show a nasty and poor attitude and a fanatical behavior. I also clearly and rationally pointed out why the big bang theory remains a theory, while those that fanatically attack my tiny edit do not display much rationality, especially in light of the scope of my edit. I really hope and yes expect administrators to take the time to actually review this case including the part that others, including the once complaining on my talk page, played. for me this case is about respecting science and scientific ethos. I know this block expires shortly but it's the principle of having an unfair block stand in my history. I also know that the best option would have been asking for mediation, but it should have been those questioning my edit that should have discussed it on the discussion page or asked for mediation, and in the end asking for mediation over a single scientifically correct word seems madness to me.
234:
that the universe is expanding at an increased rate, against the expectations, astrophysicist also had to adjust previous thinking and introduce dark matter and dark energy, both of which they admit are rather desperate attempts to explain observations that we don't really know how to explain. A great many times predictions made by the proponents of the big bang theory were shown to not correlate to observation, and they then quickly tried to adjust the theory to make it fit but this happens so frequently that you can at least say that it's a theory and not a fact. Additionally it seems that the big bang theory has gathered a cult following that is quite fanatic and willing to abandon scientific ethos for 'the cause' and I think this is illustrated by the extreme attempts they did/do to prevent me from a small edit of preceding the word 'theoretical' before the words 'big bang', with some silly argumentation like saying that calling the actual fact that the big bang theory is a theory 'misleading' and even suggesting it is a 'fringe theory' to point out the big bang theory is in fact a theory. At this point it's hard to not be reminded if the situation in the middle ages.
554:
and ask a fair and reasonable review after pointing out that I did my best and as a result I get a bunch of small-minded people who seem to only wish to reject appeals, rather than look at the issue and decide on the basis of the actual issue. Then they add snide remarks as if they own wikipedia. You certainly managed to open my eyes on the reliability of wikipedia, all you need is a few friends or cultmembers and you can happily edit the most bizarre nonsense and block scientifically verifiable correct edits at will. Seems that those that like to piss on science and reality win in the end then. It's another proud moment for humanity. I'm quite disgusted by the disappointing lack of regards for reason. Note that I actually tried to go through a mediation process eventually, but I cannot enter a request while blocked I found, but seeing that the last admin that rejected me and who did such a poor effort used to be on a mediation committee I think it's clear I might as well forget about that and let science quietly die on wikipedia and let cult formed pseudo science win.
577:
it requires that, when disputes arrive, editors discuss them to try to reach consensus, not just keep making the same edit over and over again. Your block is going to automatically expire in about 13 hours. At that point, you will be welcome to come back and discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Note that if you start trying to edit war on the article again you'll be blocked. This is a behavioral policy, and one that makes no exception simply because you believe you're right. So, please, just wait a little while longer, try to understand why we have to block people who won't engage in collegial consensus building (otherwise, everyone would just edit war forever every time they though they were right), and, when the block is up, go to the article's talk page to try to persuade everyone else why your version is better.
66: 468: 318: 148: 553:
see above. (And note that I was 'warned' by the guy who was heading the war, which shows the last admin's effort in looking at the damn situation.) This is beyond believable, I am attacked in an edit war by a group of clever jerks and I get blocked then patiently and poignantly explain the situation
233:
That the big bang theory is a theory is well known and widely accepted and it is in fact described on wikipedia as the bing bang theory, furthermore there are constant reminders that we have poor knowledge of the universe at large and in fact only 2 days ago the Nobel price was awarded for discovery
576:
Wwhat, you're not hearing what we're saying. You weren't blocked because of the content you were adding--you were blocked because you kept adding the same content over and over again, even though 4 different users disagreed with you. That is the problem. Since Knowledge (XXG) allows open editing,
403:
As outlined very clearly above I was the one attacked for a doing a scientifically correct one word edit, I am aware it is annoying and untenable to have people constantly do undo's, and that some arbitration is necessary, but I expect wikipedia's administrators to review the actual situation, that
245:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
623:
Three uninvolved and experienced administrators have declined your unblock request. It's a suggestion - just start editing after 24 hours and take care not to revert more than three times in a 24 hour period.
611:
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.
459:
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.
309:
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.
596: 444: 294: 272: 122: 508: 358: 188: 90: 29:
in particular). The Big Bang is well-established as fact in science, and in no way a theoretical construct. I'd advise you to
43: 106: 86: 481: 331: 161: 73: 503: 353: 183: 475: 325: 155: 480:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
330:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
160:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
280: 430:. You were warned; you continued; you were stopped. We have no patience for that around here at all. -- 427: 22: 522: 372: 202: 51: 582: 39: 30: 632: 47: 605: 453: 303: 276: 112: 94: 26: 102: 98: 82: 78: 133: 578: 431: 35: 625: 250:
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Knowledge (XXG),
555: 486: 405: 336: 166: 128: 636: 586: 563: 434: 413: 284: 140: 56: 466: 316: 146: 64: 593:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
441:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
291:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
97:. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek 613:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
461:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
311:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
536: 532: 526: 517: 513: 499: 495: 491: 386: 382: 376: 367: 363: 349: 345: 341: 216: 212: 206: 197: 193: 179: 175: 171: 101:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 474:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
324:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
262:
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
154:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
256:the block is no longer necessary because you 105:. If you would like to be unblocked, you may 8: 89:. During a dispute, you should first try to 21:You are edit warring against consensus (see 121:below this notice, but you should read the 259:understand what you have been blocked for, 265:will make useful contributions instead. 77:from editing for a short time for your 7: 426:None of this is relevant. You were 14: 1: 91:discuss controversial changes 637:09:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 587:06:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 564:04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 478:, who declined the request. 435:03:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 414:02:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 328:, who declined the request. 285:01:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 158:, who declined the request. 143: 141:19:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 57:01:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 652: 597:guide to appealing blocks 445:guide to appealing blocks 295:guide to appealing blocks 273:guide to appealing blocks 123:guide to appealing blocks 559: 409: 33:before you get blocked. 471: 321: 275:for more information. 151: 69: 523:change block settings 470: 373:change block settings 320: 203:change block settings 150: 117:Your reason here ~~~~ 68: 85:by violation of the 109:by adding the text 472: 322: 152: 99:dispute resolution 70: 107:appeal this block 87:three-revert rule 643: 629: 610: 604: 542: 540: 529: 511: 509:deleted contribs 469: 458: 452: 392: 390: 379: 361: 359:deleted contribs 319: 308: 302: 271:Please read the 222: 220: 209: 191: 189:deleted contribs 149: 138: 131: 120: 67: 55: 651: 650: 646: 645: 644: 642: 641: 640: 627: 621: 616: 608: 602: 601:, then use the 590: 567: 530: 520: 506: 489: 482:blocking policy 467: 464: 456: 450: 449:, then use the 438: 417: 380: 370: 356: 339: 332:blocking policy 317: 314: 306: 300: 299:, then use the 288: 236: 210: 200: 186: 169: 162:blocking policy 147: 134: 129: 126: 110: 103:page protection 65: 34: 19: 12: 11: 5: 649: 647: 620: 617: 591: 574: 570:Decline reason 551: 547:Request reason 544: 465: 439: 424: 420:Decline reason 401: 397:Request reason 394: 315: 289: 269: 268: 267: 266: 263: 260: 254: 243: 239:Decline reason 231: 227:Request reason 224: 145: 71:You have been 63: 61: 31:drop the stick 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 648: 639: 638: 635: 634: 631: 630: 618: 615: 614: 607: 600: 598: 589: 588: 584: 580: 573: 571: 566: 565: 561: 557: 550: 548: 543: 538: 534: 528: 524: 519: 515: 510: 505: 501: 500:global blocks 497: 496:active blocks 493: 488: 483: 479: 477: 476:administrator 463: 462: 455: 448: 446: 437: 436: 433: 429: 423: 421: 416: 415: 411: 407: 400: 398: 393: 388: 384: 378: 374: 369: 365: 360: 355: 351: 350:global blocks 347: 346:active blocks 343: 338: 333: 329: 327: 326:administrator 313: 312: 305: 298: 296: 287: 286: 282: 278: 274: 264: 261: 258: 257: 255: 253: 249: 248: 247: 242: 240: 235: 230: 228: 223: 218: 214: 208: 204: 199: 195: 190: 185: 181: 180:global blocks 177: 176:active blocks 173: 168: 163: 159: 157: 156:administrator 144: 142: 139: 137: 132: 124: 118: 114: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 88: 84: 80: 76: 75: 62: 59: 58: 53: 49: 45: 41: 37: 32: 28: 24: 16: 633: 626: 622: 612: 594: 592: 575: 569: 568: 552: 546: 545: 518:creation log 485: 473: 460: 442: 440: 428:edit warring 425: 419: 418: 402: 396: 395: 368:creation log 335: 323: 310: 292: 290: 270: 251: 244: 238: 237: 232: 226: 225: 198:creation log 165: 153: 135: 127: 116: 83:edit warring 72: 60: 20: 277:Daniel Case 619:Suggestion 514:filter log 364:filter log 194:filter log 81:caused by 79:disruption 23:WP:EDITWAR 595:read the 533:checkuser 492:block log 443:read the 383:checkuser 342:block log 293:read the 213:checkuser 172:block log 95:consensus 93:and seek 624:Regards. 579:Qwyrxian 504:contribs 432:jpgordon 354:contribs 184:contribs 115:|reason= 44:contribs 36:Headbomb 17:Edit war 628:Wifione 606:unblock 527:unblock 454:unblock 377:unblock 304:unblock 207:unblock 125:first. 113:unblock 74:blocked 48:physics 136:(talk) 27:WP:3RR 599:first 556:Wwhat 487:Wwhat 447:first 406:Wwhat 337:Wwhat 297:first 167:Wwhat 52:books 583:talk 560:talk 410:talk 281:talk 130:Kuru 40:talk 25:and 537:log 484:). 387:log 334:). 217:log 164:). 609:}} 603:{{ 585:) 572:: 562:) 549:: 531:• 525:• 521:• 516:• 512:• 507:• 502:• 498:• 494:• 457:}} 451:{{ 422:: 412:) 399:: 381:• 375:• 371:• 366:• 362:• 357:• 352:• 348:• 344:• 307:}} 301:{{ 283:) 252:or 241:: 229:: 211:• 205:• 201:• 196:• 192:• 187:• 182:• 178:• 174:• 119:}} 111:{{ 50:/ 46:/ 42:/ 581:( 558:( 541:) 539:) 535:( 490:( 408:( 391:) 389:) 385:( 340:( 279:( 221:) 219:) 215:( 170:( 54:} 38:{

Index

WP:EDITWAR
WP:3RR
drop the stick
Headbomb
talk
contribs
physics
books
01:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
blocked
disruption
edit warring
three-revert rule
discuss controversial changes
consensus
dispute resolution
page protection
appeal this block
unblock
guide to appealing blocks
Kuru
(talk)
19:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
administrator
blocking policy
Wwhat
block log
active blocks
global blocks
contribs

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.