User talk:EPROM

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Banedon (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned for using Wikipedia as a forum and for personal attacks, per my closure of the edit warring complaint. Please see more details there. I won't be blocking your account providing the attacks stop, you cease promoting the stoneparadox.com site and you adhere to the WP:COI rules. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see this message until now and I've already added a couple of comments. I will not add anymore comments based on your threat. I can easily see what's going on and I already know that this is an orchestrated "group effort" for censorship that I cannot stand against as an individual. I have no other comments to make on this "warning" anyway. To me, it's obviously a one-sided issue in favor of a particular ideology, and that's fine. ...However, you and I both know the truth.

I will be adding a section to the Omnipotence Paradox "Talk Page" that will never mention that horribly taboo "link" that I tried to contribute and it will fully comply with all Wikipedia rules and regulations regarding that particular page... but the truth will be exposed in the process. I'm letting you know ahead of time so that you (and the others) can come up with all kinds of technical ways and various reasons for deleting my words.--EPROM (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ASPERSIONS you can't use phrasing such as "orchestrated group effort for censorship" unless you provide full details that will survive review by administrators (who are the members of the group, who did the orchestrating, etc.) So I continue to withhold your well-deserved block provided you can keep your language in check, and not criticize your opponents. You can comment on views but not on people. You are also assuming bad faith by believing that others are concocting excuses for deleting your words. The reasoning for removing your comments is WP:FORUM, which is well-accepted here and is not due to a conspiracy. Though not all appeals to FORUM are successful; sometimes people are blocked for removing others' comments. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can't prove that this is orchestrated. I'm sure they have different log-in names on Wikipedia, Rationalwiki and elsewhere... but when the person deleting my link (and my words) is clearly an Atheist and runs off to recruit fellow Atheists from Wikipedia:Project Atheism to garner support for the deletion it's rather "obvious" what's going on. I mentioned on Rationalwiki's "Omnipotence Paradox" page that there didn't seem to be a problem with Wikipedia including my link ...and then shortly afterward my link is mysteriously deleted on Wikipedia's Omnipotence Paradox page by a group of self-professed Atheists. ...Are you seriously going to suggest that this is just a "coincidence" and that I'm making all of this up?

You and I both know what's going on. Your lock-step support of their actions (even when THEY violate the rules) suggests to me that you are an Atheist as well. For a "non-group of people who don't believe in any god(s)" you all seem to be seriously "organized" ya know?

The sad part is that the Omnipotence Paradox is NOT a "researchable item," not based on any factual data nor represents anything that is founded in science. It's just a historic paradoxical question and that's all. But the "question" is only 50% of the paradox. The other 50% is how people respond to it. Wikipedia seems to only want to focus on the "question" and not so much on the responses. What is shown on Wikipedia's Omnipotence Paradox page is merely generalized synopses of what "some" people may think about it and that doesn't reflect the reality of the many diverse responses that are currently out there.

Wikipedia is behind the times on that issue.

If the subject matter was scientifically-founded or something that actually involved "research" I would absolutely understand that "original research" links and non-peer-reviewed postulates wouldn't be accepted... but there's nothing that involves "research" or "scientific fact" when one responds to something like the Stone Paradox. ...yet Wikipedia doesn't seem to care?

In case you don't know, the reason these Atheists are campaigning against my link is because I have a bullet-proof response to the Stone Paradox where Omnipotence prevails and it's something that they can't refute or disqualify. It's called the "Circular God Counter-paradox." On Rationalwiki they tried to argue against it and got their asses handed to them. So now they go everyehre I have my CGCP resolution posted and trash it. I can tell by their writing style that many are the same individuals.

So I invite you to watch my "Circular God Counter-paradox" video on YouTube (search for "stone Paradox Solution") and see for yourself. You can also do a Google search as it is the very first result on the first page (and also the first video result). If you want to present a challenge or an objection, then by all means do so! Hundreds of others have done so in the comments section and some of these arguments are very sophisticated. It's a counter-paradox, so you will not be able to negate it ...and that's why these Atheists desire to bury it. It's the #1 response out of over 700 responses offered from people around the world on Quora.com since its introduction back in 2010. Scholars, PhD's, philosophers and others (including Atheists) have all argued against it and have equally supported it.

The irony is that I am not a person of faith nor an Atheist. I just understand how paradoxical logic works. There is no panel of "Ordained Philosophers" sitting around waiting for answers to the Stone Paradox to be submitted so that they can place their "peer-reviewed" stamp of approval on it. ...So how can one ever get a response that absolutely works on Wikipedia?

You unfortunately have it all set up so that this can never happen!

Hi. I'm not going to get involved in the specific dispute, but I do want to say something about Wikipedia's Original Research policy. You seem to think it specifically means scientific research, but it does not. It extends to all forms of original investigation, original reasoning, original deduction, original thought, original argument... In short, you can not include any of your own original stuff in Wikipedia unless there is prior publication of that stuff which satisfies Wikipedia's Reliable Sources requirements. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zebedee, I appreciate your full support now because my CGCP resolution has already been published electronically. And qualifying something with "Im not going to get involved" and then doing exactly what you said you weren't going to do seems to be a common theme here on Wikipedia. I noticed Branedon, Alcyon007 and others qualified their Talk Page prose by saying, "Wikipedia is not a forum but..." and then they go on to make their forum-like comments.

Is this what I should have been doing all along? Should I have prefaced my words with, "I know Wikipedia isn't a forum, but..." and then write everything I wrote? Is that the proper protocol? Is that what keeps my comments from being deleted?--EPROM (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, it's not remotely my full support, and I find it hard to understand how you could read it that way. It's simply an explanation of why you can not include your own original material if it is not supported by reliable sources. Merely being "published electronically" is nowhere near sufficient - please do read WP:RS to understand what constitutes a reliable source. And I absolutely did not (and will not) get involved in the specific issue - I am merely explaining Wikipedia policy in general terms. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there are definitely philosophy journals and theology journals which are peer reviewed, although the people involved aren't sitting around waiting to stamp stuff. That said, as the page linked to by Boing! said Zebedee says, a RS doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed journal article, although it does have to be more than any random electronic publication. Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed how many people have chimed in to make sure that an Administrator bans me. So much effort to make sure this CGCP Resolution to the Stone Paradox never sees the light of day. Clearly you all would not put forth so much effort had my resolutioin not been so "effective."

Zebedee, I know you aren't "supporting" me. I was being sarcastic. And I already KNOW that there is no place ANYWHERE where my CGCP resolution can be published to where you and these other "individuals" will not marginalize the site or the publication. Wherever my CGCP is published or listed will be always be deemed "insufficient." That was clear to me at the beginning of the assault enacted upon my CGCP resolution.

And Nil Einne, the same goes for you. I never stated "any" as to where my CGCP Resolution has been electronic published. You just threw that out there because you want to make sure that it never appears on Wikipedia. Any Philosophical Journal that my CGCP Resolution ends up in will be declared "insufficient" or otherwise marginalized by those who seek to sensor my Resolution. I'm not stupid. I'm dealing with ideologically-driven individuals and there is no "winning" when this happens.

What perplexes me the most is how much effort you all have put into making sure that I get/stay banned. Hell, you all have even destroyed the evidence by archiving the entire Talk Page (Where Banedon and the others were guilty of doing the exact same thing they accused me of doing).

The truth is that I never stood a chance.--EPROM (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, you never stood a chance of getting your own original work into Wikipedia without its prior publication in a reliable source. That is because it is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. And it's not personal, it's the same for everyone. I'm pleased you finally understand. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care where your work has been published since I don't want to get involved in the original dispute, like Boing!. I was just responding to a few specific issues. This includes your earlier note about philosophers sitting around waiting to stamp stuff which seems to be a non sequitur. (There aren't but this doesn't stop proper work in the field being published in a peer reviewed journal, of which there are plenty.) If you work has been published in a peer reviewed journal, I have no idea why you kept linking to Quora and a personal website posting. While there's no guarantee a journal article will be accepted, at least it doesn't automatically fail RS like the stuff you did link to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of any reviewers, the block was imposed per this thread at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

EPROM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The definition of "Encyclopedia" is as follows: (Link) "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." A resolution to the Stone Paradox that nullifies the question is obviously considered "valuable information" to the topic of "Omnipotence Paradox" here on Wikipedia. Whether or not you want to include valuable information like this is not up to me. All I can do is offer it. Although my link was deleted and disallowed by certain individuals on Wikipedia, that does not mean that a discussion regarding WHY there is no "external links" section on the topic page cannot ensue on the "talk page" as that is one of its intended purposes. I have not broken any rules since I was directed by the Administrator to not add anymore links to the Omnipotence Paradox page nor have I engaged in any "forumesque" conversations on the talk page. Any relative comments made after the warning were made because I had not yet read the message. This was previously explained to the Administrator (and accepted as such) and does not serve as justification for deleting my new "talk page" section. Based on the universally-accepted definition of what an "Encyclopedia" actually is (and the information to which I was attempting to contribute), then my intentions were 100% justified and serves as empirical evidence that I acted to enhance Wikipedia as an "Encyclopedia." . I have also completely followed the Administrators directives after issued a warning, so there is no justification for an indefinite banning. My added section on the "Talk Page" is absolutely appropriate and really needs an answer from others as to why there is no "External Links" section connected with this topic. Nobody has ever stated a reason for this and it is within reason to query as to why. Therefore this block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. There is no verifiable justification for this indefinite banning. I request that my new section be allowed to remain, my "indefinite ban" reversed so that others and I can be afforded the opportunity to respond.

Decline reason:

I think it's very clear that your sole reason for editing here is to add a link to your website. In lieu of blocking you for edit warring by repeatedly re-inserting your link, Mr. Johnston left you an explicit warning that you will need to better manage your conflict of interest and to avoid promoting your site at the article's talk page. This is just not the place to discuss original research, to promote your own material, or to continue to muse about the motivations of editors who disagree with your approach. Since it's fairly clear that you'd continue the same behavior if unblocked, and you cannot seem to understand why that is not desirable, I feel it would be a very poor idea to remove or reduce this block. Kuru (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I suggest you withdraw your unblock request and take a read of WP:5P and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. After that, read hopefully for the second or more time (since it was already linked above) Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. BTW, with a few exceptions, none of which apply here, admins don't give 'directions'. Any editor may remind you to follow wikipedia policies and guidelines. As for disruption, your comment on AN [1] managed to convince an admin that you were WP:NOTHERE. If you want to convince admins otherwise, you need to understand what wikipedia is about, which may come from reading the pages I linked but isn't likely come from reading dictionary.com. I'm not an admin, but I can assure you that starting an unblock request with the definition of an encyclopaedia from a link to dictionary.com almost definitely means that your unblock request will fail. (Don't think it's just the source. Starting an unblock request with the definition used in Encyclopaedia isn't likely you help either. For that matter, copying some definition from one of the pages I linked earlier isn't likely to help you. ) Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you ever get unblocked I suggest you take a read of WP:CORP and consider the appropriateness of your username. Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you commenting on this issue if you are not an Administrator? You have no skin in this game. Furthermore, all you are doing is trying to convince an Administrator to keep the ban in place.

There is so much vitriol coming from the individuals editing that Talk Page and reporting me to Administrators that now you're even marginalizing my USER NAME! What does my username have to do with anything at all? (Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory).

The fact is that another Administrator has already acted on what happened on that Talk Page. I have already AGREED to his terms. This is a "different" Administrator who has mistakenly blocked me after I have already agreed to the other Administrator's terms. This is called "DOUBLE JEOPARDY" and therefore my block should be removed.

Rest assured I will give your suggestions the exact amount of attention they deserve.--EPROM (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Einne is more than welcome to comment. I noticed the same issue (a username that matches another conflict of interest clearly noted at the link you've repeatedly re-added). I don't think it is the primary problem here. Kuru (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently my block WAS INDEED imposed by the same Aministrator (EdJohnston) which really doesn't make sense because there was no violations made after his first warning. He was even told ahead of time that I would be adding a new section and I would make sure to make it relevant (to which I most certainly did).

There is no valid reason for blocking me after EdJohnston's initial warning. ...That is a fact!

It speaks VOLUMES that individuals such as yourself have reduced themselves to targeting my username. That is reprehensible! ...Is there no end to this onslaught? Seriously? How low will you all stoop to get me banned?

EPROM is the name of my Macaw parrot. It's the name of a BIRD! Perhaps you'd like to explain how my using the name of my parrot evokes a "conflict of interest" anywhere on Wikipedia?

On a good note, each derogatory comment you all are making is adding credence to my claim that this is an organized/orchestrated expulsion from Wikipedia. When you stoop to attacking my stinking username it makes this fairly OBVIOUS! --EPROM (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you if you're going to feign ignorance. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about your parrot. I do know that on the page you kept linking to you say's it's copyright "<a personal name>, EPROM, Inc", similar to the way someone may do if they actually own a company EPROM, Inc. I also know in the Quora stuff you linked to and tell us to search for, the author of that post who I believe you've self identified as yourself is the "Owner at EPROM, Inc (1998-present)". Note the 'at' not 'of'.

I think most people are going to assume that EPROM, Inc refers to a company, not a parrot. If you do not own a company called EPROM, Inc, then you should just say that. I said consider whether your username was appropriate. You claim to have made a great philosophical argument and you seem to have a decent level of English, so you should understand that when you style yourself on your website and in your Quora profile in those ways, people are going to assume EPROM, Inc refers to a company (whether real or fictitious), not a parrot.

Note if you intended to stylise it as a company, I'm even more mystified why you're now making fuss. How on earth were any of us supposed to know it's a fictitious company? Per WP:OUTING we actually have to take great care in anything we say here about you that comes from external research of anything you did not refer to so most of us are not going to do such research and frankly there was little reason to anyway. The pages you linked to are fair game, but even if you mentioned somewhere on them that EPROM, Inc is a fictitious company and not a real one, I don't see why you expected we should notice these references. Just tell us that the company is fictitious instead of getting worked up because we noticed you were stylising yourself with a fictitious company and assumed it was a real one.

And finally, if you do own a company called EPROM, Inc, then is is silly to bring your parrot into this, even if you also own a parrot called EPROM. Whether you named your parrot after your company, your company after your parrot, or both names were somehow derived independently, what we care about is the company and the fact that such a username could be seen to be promoting it. That was why I brought up your username. We cannot let promotional usernames violations fly just because someone's pet shares the same name as their company. Otherwise anyone who wants to use a promotional username would just name a pet, or even some inanimate object after their company and be able to claim there was nothing wrong since their username came from their pet or inanimate object not their company.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

EPROM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You have erred in your assumption. I have not made any attempts AT ALL to add my link (or any links) even BEFORE the Talk Page fiasco ensued. You are absolutely incorrect! Go back and see for yourself - I challenge you to show where I have. The ONLY addition I have made to that Talk Page after EdJohnston's warning was an additional section titled "Why is there no "Extrenal Links" section for this topic?" which is only asking why the people who are editing this page feel that a section like this should not exist. There was no mention (or references) to the link I've attepted to add a long time ago. It was just a general question about why the Omnipotence Paradox page didn't have an "External Links" section. It is something anyone else on Wikipedia could have posted and everyone would have no issues at all with the content. So how do you support your claim that I would simply return to "add the link" again if I haven't done so? I agreed to EdJohnston's terms and haven't broken any rules... so what serves as the basis for your claim that I should be blocked? EPROM (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You inserted your link four times in the article and numerous times in the talk page. I agree with the blocking admin that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Like the previous reviewer, I believe you would continue disrupting Wikipedia if unblocked. Moreover, you have requested unblocking less than an hour after your previous request was declined. It seems likely that you intend to continue making frivolous unblock requests, so I have expanded your block to include this talk page. You may submit any further appeals through the Unblock Ticket Request System. -- Scott (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To hazard a guess at "Why is there no "Extrenal Links" section for this topic?"... It's fairly common to not have such a section in an article when there are no valid external links, as it's not useful to have an empty section. Should someone have a valid external link to add, they would then add the section at the same time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]