User talk:Holybeef

Welcome!

Hello, Holybeef, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mersini-Houghton

You appear to be running into several problems here:

It is very clear that you appear to have a strong and direct personal interest in discounting the subject's research. Please see WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:DUCK, WP:POINT, and WP:SOAP.
Avoid adding red links to articles, unless you have a serious intention of creating new articles on such notable topics. WP:MOS is our manual of style.
You are running the risk of entering into an edit war. Please read WP:3RR before editing any more.
Since the general idea of fixing the article was decided by consensus at WP:AfD, there is no need to discuss every single edit on the talk page. Other editors may rely on WP:BOLD.
Please avoid accusing others of bias; refer to WP:AGF.

Thank you for your interest and work on the project. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that could be "very clear", given that we're both anonymous.
Never added any red links, but feel free to prove the opposite.
Was never engaged in an edit war, but feel free to prove the opposite.
No consensus has been reached whatsoever, let alone on a complete overhaul. WP:BOLD is for clear-cut cases, not disputes.
Never accused anyone of anything w/o providing solid evidence, unlike you in 1-4 above.

Since you're not a scientist but a lawyer (one who insinuates at that), I take your insinuations 1-4 as threats, and am feeling Chilling Effect. Holybeef (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of my edit to Alan Guth

I object strongly to your misrepresentation of my edit on Alan Guth in your comment reverting it [1]. I also object to the revert itself, insofar as you have mischaracterized the situation as "settled in talk," when it is clearly not.

First, it's clear from my comment that this was not "vandalism" because it reflected my honest opinion. I therefore request that you retract this part of the comment.

Second, it's clear from [[2]] that you have been pushing your perspective in the face of a number of objections, and that no consensus was reached. You simply argued until everyone gave up, which is not consensus.

Third, it's clear to me that you place high importance on a particular slanted interpretation of a few sources even in the face of contrary links that make it clear that Guth continues to promote inflationary theory. (For example, in a talk that I attended in July, for which the slides are available: [3].) You place particular importance on the word "recant," which has no particular meaning or purpose in modern science, so at the very least a rewording and broader discussion is necessary.

"Make it clear" is Wikipedia:POV. We can't draw our own conclusions, all we can do is use reliable secondary sources. Feel free to offer such references that say he didn't recant because Linde clearly (and repeatedly) stated (both in print and audio form) that Guth did recant. Holybeef (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask if you acknowledge that there is no consensus behind your revision and that multiple people have objected, and ask if you are willing to proceed with collegial editing on that basis. If not, as an alternative to a one-on-one edit war (hardly appropriate, and not a good use of my time), I will bring your persistent imposition of your point of view to the attention of a few noticeboards and we'll see what a wider range of editors say.

You're clearly upset due to your bias towards Mr. Guth, so I'd like to ask you to please stop threatening with edit war or otherwise. And stop trying to intimidate the community with argument from authority. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes, SCZenz (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The subject has been thoroughly discussed and referenced as anyone can see. The concluding remarks in article talk were stamped as 15:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC) and 18:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC). Please refrain from bias and argument from authority. Holybeef (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Alan Guth.

Your recent editing history at Alan Guth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.

Note: you are already in violation of the 3RR. 1 2 3. Please attempt to resolve your dispute on the talk page, not edit summaries. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check your records better: that is not an edit war since I was reverting vandalism by a user who attempted substantial changes to an article (delete an entire section) w/o any discussion whatsoever. The section was introduced after a lengthy discussion on the article talk page. This is simple: I provided some reliable references stating Guth recanted inflation theory, and all the other party has to do is produce as reliable references stating he didn't recant. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it's been pointed out that a 3RR only takes place AFTER 3, not ON 3, to be clear, yes it WAS edit warring. The 3RR is a bright line rule. Removing an entire section is not always vandalism, and in this case it absolutely was not vandalism, but a good faith edit. See WP:BRD. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 12:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that deleting (w/o discussion at that) an entire section that contains only quotes from reputable secondary sources and nothing else (so there's no room for interpretation, only counter-references, if any) is bad faith, so that my judgment (that it was indeed vandalism) was based on Wikipedia:VANDAL#For_beginners. Besides, this isn't the Dark Ages and there's no forbidden literature, so we don't delete reliable references just because we don't like them. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Everyone else involved here seems to believe that SCZens is acting in good faith. Even if he is not acting in good faith (and keep in mind he's made his point many times on the talk page, another clear bit of evidence that this is not vandalism), you are supposed to assume that he is and discuss it if at all possible. Given that two other neutral parties believe this is not vandalism, your assumption of bad faith is in violation of Wikipedia policy. There is no policy about how much of an article you can remove. There was in fact discussion and neither of you has yet built a consensus on the inclusion here. Additionally, you have NO excuse for claiming that you believed Primefac's edits were in bad faith, as he was attempting to re-integrate the material into the article and it was explicitly a compromise version. Vandals don't make compromise edits to pages. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no voting on the issue of whether or not reliable secondary references could be included or not since finding and including such sources is a right and a duty of every editor so that we can make a better encyclopedia. I explained above why it's bad faith and vandalism to delete such references. Also, I was obviously referring to the discussion of months ago which gave birth to the section, not the discussion we're having on the neutrality tag. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello, while there is a significant amount of debate on the Alan Guth article, I thought I would post here regarding some of your recent comments, specifically regarding vandalism. Please read WP:VANDAL, as the third paragraph in the lede quite distinctly states that good faith edits and even edit wars are not vandalism. There isn't anything wrong with undoing someone's edit, but marking it as vandalism when all they're trying to do is edit a page is unnecessary. It is also important to remember to be civil when dealing with these types of discussions (I know there's mud being thrown from both sides, but I thought I would mention it to you anyway). Cheers, Primefac (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that deleting (w/o discussion at that) an entire section that contains only quotes from reputable secondary sources and nothing else (so there's no room for interpretation, only counter-references, if any) is bad faith, so that my judgment (that it was indeed vandalism) was based on Wikipedia:VANDAL#For_beginners. As an advice: please read rules deeper, meaning beyond their intro paragraph. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit_warring#User:Holybeef_reported_by_User:0x0077BE_.28Result:_.29. Thank you.

Responded. No edit war, just the reverting of edits that were based on bad faith, which constitutes vandalism; see previous sections above. Holybeef (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Alan Guth. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

(1) I've never made more than 3 edits in a 24h period. (2) In any case, an edit war takes two parties but no one else seems to have been blocked in this matter. These points prove I was treated unfairly. Re your comments that I should seek consensus on controversial matters before editing: I did so months ago as can be seen from article talk page, but it's the user whose edits I was reverting that didn't discuss prior to editing which is vandalism by definition due to bad faith as seen from his aggressiveness and disregard of consensus-seeking process. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Ok, firstly, you can be blocked for making less than 3 edits in a 24 hour period. Secondly, while, by definition, an edit war requires multiple parties, that does not necessarily imply blocks have to be made on both sides. Otherwise, your view of vandalism is almost completely wrong. When the block expires, I suggest you use the talk page to establish consensus, instead of edit warring.PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2014 (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.

Edit warring on Laura Mersini-Houghton

FYI, your sequential reversions of different editors on the somewhat unstable page Laura Mersini-Houghton (a page on which you have been warned about disruptive editing in the past) would likely be considered the beginnings of yet another edit war. Given your history of disruptive editing on this page and Alan Guth, I would suggest that you attempt to build a consensus on the talk page before any further reversions to the page. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's you and your Masonic bros who invade pages like grasshoppers to massacre those pages beyond belief and totally against the rules (ironically: while excessively quoting rules but only general ones, never bullet-by-bullet.) So knock the bs, time to call a spade a spade: you're just a gang of manipulators who at any cost try to portray Guth as originator of inflation though its clear he stole it. In doing so, you disregard previous consensuses, proclaim "forbidden references", "banned words", remove neutrality from intro and overall, report me falsely to admins, etc. Holybeef (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An incident you are involved in is being discussed on WP:AN/I

While you are not the subject of the report, the ongoing incident at Laura Mersini-Houghton and Alan Guth is now being discussed on the administrator's noticeboard. You may feel free to comment there if you wish.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Holybeef. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Alan Guth.

No page at Wikipedia can be used to offer an opinion that a living person "looks like a fraud" (diff). Please review WP:BLP because further breaches will lead to blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of AN/I discussion.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding The report is regarding your editing behavior and POV.. The thread is Disruptive_editing_and_conduct_by_Holybeef. Thank you.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the false-reporting. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked this account indefinitely. The contributions include numerous violations of our biographies of living persons policy, and the editor's response—that supporters of the BLP subjects he is attacking are part of a Masonic conspiracy to manipulate content—is highly unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is way too severe for someone who had only one block of 31 hours, has joined a few months ago and has contributed significantly to multiple articles in such a brief time. If any violations were made they were in good faith but due to lack of experience. An example of this is your assertion that I spread conspiracy theories, where in fact the other party was spreading conspiracy theories and I was warning them to stop. Holybeef (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Good faith violations are still violations - you have not stated how you intend on making sure that there will be no further violations. Feel free to use another {{unblock}} with exactly how you intend to edit collaboratively without violating WP:BLP. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:32, 30 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

A good one. Holybeef (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2014 (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.