User talk:RodriguesVector

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Mass in special relativity. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

your first warning was for your IP 148.81.137.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
your second warning was for your IP 195.191.163.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
your third warning was for your IP 195.191.163.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote our own work. You have an obvious wp:conflict of interest.

Furthermore, Wikipedia needs wp:secondary sources, not wp:fringe wp:primary sources - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Your recent editing history at Mass in special relativity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - DVdm (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to allengations.

1. Why is a link to a research article referred to as spam?

2. Is the DVdm user a specialist in Relativity?

3. Why the DVdm user does not justify his editing efforts? Providing the problem code does not constitute a substantive justification.

4. The statement about the three warnings is untrue. Previously, IP entries in another section of the article were removed. As a registered user, I have made one edit in different section and it is an abuse to suggest breaking the three-repetition rule (in 24h).

THE DISCUSSION TAKES PLACE OF THE DVDM USER PROFILE UNDER THE TITLE:

"The legitimacy of removing entries by DVdm in a topic of relativistic mass"

The above DVdm warnings for me should be removed as an abuse of DVdm's editorial rights without merit.

Regards, RodriguesVector.

Answer to the allegations

1. Why is a link to a research article referred to as spam?

2. Is the DVdm user a specialist in Relativity?

3. Why the DVdm user does not justify his editing efforts? Providing the problem code does not constitute a substantive justification.

4. The statement about the three warnings is untrue. Previously, IP entries in another section of the article were removed. As a registered user, I have made one edit in different section and it is an abuse to suggest breaking the three-repetition rule (in 24h).

THE DISCUSSION TAKES PLACE OF THE DVDM USER PROFILE UNDER THE TITLE:

"The legitimacy of removing entries by DVdm in a topic of relativistic mass"

The above DVdm warnings for me should be removed as an abuse of DVdm's editorial rights without merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodriguesVector (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

Answers:

See the above links to our policies and guidelines wp:Conflict of interest, wp:Secondary sources, wp:Fringe wp:Primary sources
Irrelevant, but yes, I am.
My edits are all justified,see (1)

Read the statement. It does not matter if you used IP-addresses or a new special purpose user account. This is about your edits, and if you persist, you will be blocked by username and/or IP address(es). - DVdm (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ DVdm Ad. 1. This is not the answer to my question! You incorrectly identify primary and secondary sources. You have no grounds to accuse me of a conflict of interest.

Ad. 2. If you are a specialist, have a scientific discussion and read what is written.

Ad. 3. I do not think so. Let another editor decide!

Ad. 4. Don't pretend you don't understand: the rule of three repetitions in 24 hours has not been broken - including IP and user identity. Do you want to keep making a false allegation ?! RodriguesVector (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RodriguesVector: Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal, nor is it a scientific discussion forum. Our policies and guidelines are the primary means by which we define what is and is not suitable content. Make sure you understand and are in compliance with the documents wp:Conflict of interest, wp:Secondary sources, wp:Fringe, and wp:Primary sources. Then you will be ready to have a discussion about whether the disputed content is or is not suitable for Wikipedia. If material is not compliant with the guidelines, no one is going to have a scientific discussion with you about it. That is not what we are here for. We are here to build an encyclopedia.

I haven't looked at the editing history on this topic, but I can provide some clarity on the edit war warning above. The message is warning you about two related but separate things: the first is that edit warring (repeatedly restoring your preferred version of content) is not allowed, and can result in the person doing it being blocked from editing. There isn't any hard rule on how many edits are required, or over what time span. If an Administrator decides that your activity is edit warring (especially if you have already been warned about it), he or she can block you.

The second thing the message is warning you about is that in addition to the general prohibition on edit warring, there is a specific bright-line rule that no editor may perform more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours. Regardless of circumstances, an Administrator can and will block anyone who does that. It's not uncommon for an Admin to come in and block people on both sides of an edit war for violating the three revert rule. As DVdm points out above, the prohibition is on edits by one person, not by one account, so logging out and performing reverts as an IP user doesn't alter the rule. (And attempting to avoid rules by using multiple accounts or IP addresses to appear to be more than one person is itself a violation of the sockpuppetry policy.)--Srleffler (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RodriguesVector: You and @DVdm have asked me to comment on your disagreement. I don't have a strong opinion here. The article linked by you seems relevant to the topic and I did not get the impression that it makes outrageous claims. I think a short sentence at the end of the first paragraph (after "otherwise they may be different.", not starting on a new line) of this section on Relativistic vs. rest mass could be appropriate. I would suggest the following wording: 'A historical and mathematical metaanalysis has listed ten equivalent definitions of relativistic mass.[11]' If one wanted to keep it even shorter, 'historical and mathematical' could be left out.

It is possible that my reading of your article was too superficial and that it does contradict accepted conclusions in this field. If DVdm has significant scientific objections,(s)he should list them, and my recommendation would probably change. Klaus Schmidt-Rohr (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a non-reliable, primary source, created by the user, and not mentioned in the relevant literature, so it doesn't even matter what it actually says. - DVdm (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srleffler. Thank you very much for the quick and comprehensive explanation.

@Klaus Schmidt-Rohr. Thank you very much for the quick review of the material and the positive feedback. I consider your edition: „A historical and mathematical metaanalysis has listed ten equivalent definitions of relativistic mass.[11]” to be consensus after the explanation for DVdm.

@DVdm. Now you talking about „primary source, created by the user, and not mentioned in the relevant literature”, before you talking about „Conflict of interest, Secondary sources, Fringe”. But let's see how the deletions were justified:

I) 21:26, 14 May 2021 DVdm (Reverted edits): „addition of unnecessary/inappropriate external links”

II) 08:55, 15 May 2021 DVdm (Reverted 1 edit): „WP:ELNO”

III) 09:45, 17 May 2021 DVdm (Reverted 1 edit): „spam removal”

IV) 18:01, 22 May 2021 DVdm (Restored revision 1023608080): „Removed 4th attempt at spamming personal fringe work”.

It is clear that the current allegations are different from the original ones (innappropriate, ELNO, spam, fringle). Only "fringle" happened again. After reading the Wikipedia guidelines on Conflict of interest, Secondary sources, Fringe, Primary sources I can responsibly say that there has been a mistake and over-interpretation of the rules. The term "Original research" was confused and replaced with the term "Primary sources" unconsciously in the context of "Peer-reviewed journal: Results in Physics Elsevier" (mentioned by WP on first place in "Reliable sources"). In addition, the article at issue does not necessarily have to be "Primary source", but may be regarded as "Secondary source" as it relates to 131 other articles of opinion. In other words, the Results in Physics article is half a review and history article. First of all, the sentences referring to the article did not propagate any "Fringle" content. The „Conflict of interest” allegation also has nothing to do with what is written in the WP guidelines. I hope that these are sufficient explanations to accept the consensus proposed by Klaus Schmidt-Rohr.

Best regards RodriguesVector (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus anywhere near, and what happens in case of wp:NOCONSENSUS, is this: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." You are wasting your time here. - DVdm (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RodriguesVector, a simple question: are you the author of the article you cited?--Srleffler (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srleffler. Thank you for speaking again.

I just had you asked for your opinion on Wikipedia's Rules of Procedure as an experienced editor and English linguist.

You were the first, and you asked a question about my identity. After all, you know that Wikipedia editors are anonymous and have the right to anonymity. So I cannot confirm that I am the author of any article or that I am not. Your identity question suggests confusing the terms "self-published sources" or "original research" with the substantial matter of "peer-reviewed journals" that is not covered by these previous terms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources).

A legitimate question is whether the source I have given is "primary source" or "secondary source"? Moreover, can it be cited on Wikipedia in the form proposed by Klaus Schmidt-Rohr? The question of who is for all participants of the discussion, but most of all for you, editor Srleffler.

Best regards RodriguesVector (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, you might consider going to the article talk page Talk:Mass in special relativity with this, pointing to this, inviting other article contributors. Don't hold your breath. Promoting our own work is a no-no for Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RodriguesVector: That's fine. Nothing says I can't ask, and nothing obligates you to answer. The identity question is relevant because if you are the author of the paper, you have a conflict of interest, and should not have posted a link to it. --Srleffler (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Srleffler. I'm sorry, but you are using the Wikipedia regulations as inappropriately as the DVdm. You confuse the concepts of Conflict of Interest (COI), Self-published sources (SELFPUB), Writing about yourself (SELFPROMOTE) with the imputed question of Citing yourself (SELFCITE).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

Quotes:

„Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work.”

„Citing yourself (SELFCITE): Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

Quote:

„Self-published sources (SELFPUB): Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works

Quote:

„Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same.”

Thus, an article published in a peer-reviewed journal cannot by definition be called self published and seft promote. Since Wikipedia allows SELFCITE even from SELFPUB sources, it allows all the more so that experts (SMEs) cite peer-reviewed articles.

Anyway, no one knows if I am the author of the cited peer-reviewed article. However, you can see that the editors of Wikipedia do not know the rules of Wikipedia, and I do not intend to work in such conditions.

Regards RodriguesVector (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; my memory of the rule on citing your own work was not correct.--Srleffler (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm

This discussion, as noted by Srleffler, is not intended to be a scientific discussion, but a discussion of the Wikipedia rules. So I don't have to change the thread for now.

Of course Wikipedia does not promote anyone's personal research. Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia that relies on reliable peer-reviewed and confirmed sources. There are some rules on Wikipedia that you should know and follow. These rules are created by many people and are very elaborate and intuitive for me. Ignorance or non-understanding of these rules hurts everyone - just as ignorance of the law is harmful (Ignorantia iuris nocet).

I have the impression that your interpretation (editor DVdm) is very subjective and does not comply with the idea of Wikipedia and its written rules. I don't know, maybe something has changed in those 16 years as an editor - maybe you read the regulations a few years ago and forgot what the essence of the details are.

Suppose I am a lawyer and require the editor of the DVdm to be quoted from Wikipedia's rules and not to say "you may be blocked", "you are wasting your time here".

So I am asking other Wikipedia editors to settle this dispute of mine with the editor of DVdm, who mocks Klaus Schmidt-Rohr' consensus proposal. Please, make the decision explicitly in line with Wikipedia's regulations.

Regards RodriguesVector (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody owes you a scientific discussion. Your personal work is not mentioned in the literature, and thus not welcome on Wikipedia. That is all there is to it. You—and actually, we—are severely wasting your time here. - DVdm (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ DVdm

You are violating two important Wikipedia rules:

i.There is no hard requirement for a source published in a peer-reviewed journal to have multiple citations. Even if it is treated as the "primary source", the doubts are settled in the discussion. You broke the rules of discussion by disregarding the opinions of the actively writing editor on the topic (K. S.-R.).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Quotes:

„Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.”

„Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.”

„For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context.”

Ad. i. I just googled the contested article and its arXiv preprint have 4 citations:

1)Spirichev, arXiv

2)Moscow University Physics Bulletin

3)Acta Physica Polonica A (self-citation)

4)Conference material (self-citation)

ii.By imposing the authorship of the quoted article on me, you are already fundamentally breaking Wikipedia's assumption of anonymity. You confuse the issue of verifiable entries with personal verifiability that you understand. Wikipedia's rules are consistent and logical, but your perception of them is contradictory. You mix the source citation requirement with the source independence requirement from the editor in one sentence.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_anonymous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself

Regards RodriguesVector (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Srleffler wrote me the answer above. So the most recent information is above where the indentation is greatest ("::::").

Regards RodriguesVector (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]