User talk:Intuitive2000

Welcome

Hello, Intuitive2000, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Pattern Recognition in Physics ‎ 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are now blatantly in violation of WP:3RR having been reverted by multiple editors, please revert yourself before you are blocked. There is a discussion page where you may make your case why we should ignore our policies about using a self published source to provide unduly self promotional claims into the article, but I doubt you will gain consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I have been removing the content not on the basis of "I dont like it" , I have been removing it on the basis that it does not meet our policy standards for content. You have included a lot of blogware of non suitable stature and you are using the journal to promote unduly self serving claims. see SPS. In addition the claims as you have entered them are entirely WP:UNDUE weight to the views expressed.

Wikipedia does not give "equal time" WP:VALID - it presents content based on what reliable third party sources have said. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 24 March 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#User:Intuitive2000 reported by User:Randykitty (Result: ). Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 24 March 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#User:Intuitive2000 reported by User:Jinkinson (Result: ). Thank you. Jinkinson talk to me 17:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Intuitive2000. You seem to be edit warring to restore your preferred material at Pattern Recognition in Physics. There may still be time for you to respond at the noticeboard and agree to stop. If you don't it is likely you will be blocked from editing. Even if it turns out you are right that is no defence against sanctions under our policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relation?

What is your relation to the account User talk:Ouadfeul? And do you have a conflict of interest relating to the articles that you are editing? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:59, 24 March 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).

Intuitive2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not engage in edit-warring but I was draw in it by TheRedPenOfDoom and Randykitty who continuously deleted entire paragraphs that I added to balance a biased article. The article refers to a scientific journal that was closed by the publisher (Copernicus) for motivations that the editors of the journal (Ouadfeul and Morner) found to be a form of censorship. The original Wikipedia article contained only the motivation of the publisher but did not report the rebuttals of the editors. The rebuttal of the editor (Dr. Morner) was published on a new version of the journal that is now published independently. My contribution to the Wikipedia article was to add a paragraph where the point of view of the editor was summarized. Moreover, the issue has been analyzed in detail in numerous web-blogs. The original Wikipedia article contained only references to web-blogs that supported the point of view of the publisher. To balance this point I added references to the web-blogs that supported the point of view of the editors. My original editing was perfectly finalized to improve the article to present all relevant viewpoints of the issue. Instead of improving the article with constructive proposals, TheRedPenOfDoom and Randykitty started to delete the paragraphs that I added and returned the Wikipedia article to a biased state that promote only one viewpoint of the story, the one that they promote. They did not demonstrated that my entries were wrong or misleading or anything else, they just delete entire paragraphs to promote a biased account of the story. This Wikipedia article would not be fair and will be seriously misleading and defamatory if edited in such a way to censor the opinion of the editors of the journal and the arguments provided by people who have studied the cased in detail and reached a conclusion in favor of the editors and criticized the action of the publisher. In my editing I did not delete any content but simply balanced the paper for fairness of all view points. I invited TheRedPenOfDoom and Randykitty to discuss the issue but they continued to delete the paragraphs. Intuitive2000 (talk) 4:09 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, the only component here that would warrant the early release of an edit-warring block is the start of the first sentence, "I did not engage in edit-warring". The rest is just justifying that edit-warring you just said you did not engage in. And as for not engaging in it, the 13 reversions shown at WP:ANEW indicate that is false. Please read WP:3RR. You are not given an exception from the three-revert rule or edit warring policies simply because you feel your reversions are justified. If that were the case, these policies wouldn't exist - because people don't make reversions they don't feel are justified. - Vianello (Talk) 21:49, 24 March 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).

Intuitive2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Vianello, I do understand your concern. However, there is a need also to look at what happened at the web-site. It is evident that the editing of an article require some correctness from all the contributors. The development of that article has been continuously disrupted by actions that are close to vandalism. Also now Ohnoitsjamie has again deleted the paragraphs that were balancing the article without providing any argument to do so. So, I simply ask that you look carefully at the facts to determine whether I have been the victim of a form of aggression from the other contributors. Intuitive2000 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The facts relating to your block is that you were edit warring, and you were; you were advised you needed to keep you disagreement to the talk page. That you think you are correct and justified is totally irrelevant; we do not tolerate edit warring here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:50, 24 March 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.