User talk:Firstcause

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Higgs boson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Higgs boson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Favonian (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been watching this topic for years and noticed not a single editor has posted this most notable research that refutes the Higgs boson discovery due to omitted-variable bias. If editors of this topic are to be taken seriously then integrity needs to be exercised when findings of this nature have been made that supersede previous knowledge. When I created my new account I did not "immediately began edit-warring". I placed a much needed comment about findings that had been ignored but not refuted. The editors who promptly deleted my comments without first refuting the validity of my comments I saw as a hostile and irresponsible act due to the importance of the topic. I did not conduct the edit-warring as much as it was thrown at me. As the upcoming dispute will reveal, physicists at CERN did not factor which mutually exclusive selection variables caused which collision effect nor is it technically feasible for them to do so. By scientific standards the Higgs boson discovery could not be made because it cannot be verified based on omitted-variable bias... unless of course we are no longer talking about science. Firstcause (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After your block expires, you are welcome to discuss this dispute on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Apparently being correct about adding new information about the Higgs boson discovery in question is not allowed. As stated in the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: In general, BRD will fail if: There is a (large) preexisting consensus in the general community against the specific change you'd like to make. This leaves me no other recourse but to take this up as a dispute. I request that this block be remove so that I may initiate the dispute process without any further delay. You have my assurance that I will not add this new information until after the dispute has been resolved. Firstcause (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You created a new account, immediately began edit-warring, and continued edit-warring after being warned. You are welcome to discuss the issue on the article's talk page when your block expires. If you resume edit-warring after your block expires, your next block will be substantially longer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:14, 28 August 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

No one has been able to refute that an omission error has occurred regarding the Higgs boson discovery. Yet two editors have censored such findings without impunity. Apparently this matter needs to escalated to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Either experiments can be conducted without a selection event first taking place or they cannot. This matter is not subject to consensus of opinion since it is absolute one way or the other. Firstcause (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, specifically a breach of the three revert rule. You are not blocked for the content of your edits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:32, 28 August 2015 (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.

Wikipedia is not the place to push your own personal original research about superdestiny or whatever the theory is you are unsuccessfully trying to promote on the web. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be more direct: this "omitted-variable bias" does not exist. It is not acceptable in the article. No matter how many accounts you make, it won't change anything. --mfb (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]