User talk:Schicagos

Welcome

Hello, Schicagos! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Atheism, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Heptanoic acid, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I noticed a number of your recent edits used improper sources. For instance, this edit. Your own wikipedia user page is not considered a reliable source. Please read through WP:RS and WP:V when you have a chance to see why sources are important, and what constitutes a good one. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User:Mann jess, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Heptanoic acid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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. 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. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Schicagos. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 19:11, 10 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

He deleted my posts when I gave ACCURATE chemistry information just because he didn't like the fact that it was coming from a FIRST HAND SOURCE. What am I supposed to do to show him that the information is right? Give him video of me synthesizing hexane from heptanoic acid? Take him to chemistry class with me? SchicagoS (talk) 3:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)

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. TN X Man 19:35, 10 April 2012 (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 unblock request susperseded by one below) Plus, its stupid... he obviously doesnt even know chemistry, yet he feels the need to make judgements on others chemistry knowledge? Where is his degree? Nonexistent. I'm being punished for telling the truth? Puh'lease. If you dont unblock me before the day is over, I am going to blog about how terrible this website and this guy is. Editing accurate information from a firsthand source, the nerve of you! SchicagoS (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this unblock request susperseded by one below) you said This is a warning, "we will block you for 1 day if this doesnt stop". So I stopped, then you blocked me for a WEEK before I even made a 2nd "personal attack". The first of which was really a joke. So the reason you blocked me is BS.

So you needed to be warned to know that edits such as these [1] & [2] are utterly inappropriate?

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 20:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this unblock request susperseded by one below) Yes, I do need to be warned... especially if this is the FIRST time I've ever been warned. What you did is completely draconian. COMMON SENSE! You blocked me before I even made a second offense. SchicagoS (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

Read this, calmly. First hand information is not what Wikipedia uses. I might know very well that the Pink Affidavit group is not now going on tour because I actually saw Wayne Shurtarz (bass) shoot the other three. Until it's published in a reliable source - even if they then quote my description word for word - I can't post it here. If you saw some of the unreferenced crap we have to get rid of, you might understand why. You might well be correct in your info. Until you can back it up, it won't stand. If you can't find sources straight away, post (POLITELY) on the talk page and start a discussion there. You've got a week - you could have been blocked indefinitely. Count it as a learning experience for when you leave school for the big world of whatever. You don't get a new job and immediately tell the manager what he's doing wrong. Well, you might, but there's plenty more jobs, aren't there? Macdonalds are always advertising, or there's the car wash... Be polite. Costs nothing. Accept that while you may know the info, others know the procedures way better than you do yet. Read WP:RS while you're cooling down. Look at the articles at WP:CSD, and perhaps you'll have a better picture of what we're telling you. You can shout at me - but I don't advise it. Someone else will up your block. And I'll just shake my head, smile and go and delete more crap and spam. Peridon (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

If you do that, I'll report you for abusing power.... which you arguably already ARE doing. In fact you are giving ad-hominem attacks after you just blocked me for ad hominem attacks. Which makes you a hypocrite. "Count it as a learning experience for when you leave school for the big world of whatever. You don't get a new job and immediately tell the manager what he's doing wrong. Well, you might, but there's plenty more jobs, aren't there? Macdonalds are always advertising, or there's the car wash." AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. You are a hypocrite. "I might know very well that the Pink Affidavit group is not now going on tour because I actually saw Wayne Shurtarz (bass) shoot the other three. Until it's published in a reliable source - even if they then quote my description word for word - I can't post it here." This is a completely flawed argument, because you are basically saying "I am not a reliable source of information." Either you are lying about seeing people getting shot, or you aren't lying about seeing Wayne Shurtarz shooting the other members. Plus, if you are a 1st hand source of something... you could easily blog about it. And if a magazine reads your blog and writes in their magazine "there are reports that the bassist shot the other 3 members". And then you can quote the magazine? That's completely flawed logic. It is like saying "give evidence of your evidence", its absurd.. cause then you need evidence of the evidence of the evidence. And eventually you end up in an infinite logical regress. SchicagoS (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason why you were blocked in the first place - edits such as [3] are clearly not acceptable here, and unless you indicate you understand this and will not repeat it, you will not be unblocked. This is quite apart from the fact that attacking other editors in an unblock request is a certain method of ensuring that such a request is not accepted. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again, you only gave me one chance. You blocked me before even giving me a second chance. So your whole logic for blocking me is flawed, especially since I've never been reported before and you never explained to me the rules before blocking me. Second of all, I never attacked him in the unblock request, I pointed out his hypocrisy. He blocked me for an ad hominem, then immediately gave an ad hominem against me. If you continue to keep me blocked, I will take this to a higher power. I have powerful connections in the IT world. SchicagoS (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks disgusting edits like your now-deleted one to User:Mann jess is acceptable behavior is not welcome here under any circumstances; you're lucky your block is as short as it is. PS: threats will not get you unblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:36, 10 April 2012 (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.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks. There's a standard way administrators handle unblock requests. Even if you were right, an unblock request like this will never succeed, as it is directly against our standard practices. Too many bad unblock requests will result in you losing access to editing your talk page (this page), so I'd suggest calmly talking about the matter with other editors before making further requests. Please read through my comment below for more info. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since making threats is even less likely to result in your being unblocked, you may wish to "take this to a higher power" by emailing arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Indeed, this is likely to be your only option, as the next admin who responds is likely to lock the page. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Unless you want to be blocked from editing your own talk page, you should stop making nonsensical unblock requests and start reading some of the links that have been posted here. You're not going to get unblocked unless the admin reviewing the block believes you're going to play by the rules from now on. Do you think you can do that? If you can, welcome to Wikipedia. If you can't, then Wikipedia isn't the right place for you. --Six words (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, that's a completely flawed system... cause the admin could be corrupt, and in fact... I just proved that he is because he did exactly the same thing that he blocked me for doing. SchicagoS (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back up the page, I'm not the one who blocked you, or who declined your requests. I'm the idiot who is trying to help you get out of the hole you are in. I do this quite often. Sometimes it works. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure my opinion isn't worth much to you right now, but I assure you I didn't have any interest in you being blocked. That's why I posted such polite and engaging messages to your talk page first (or at least, that's what I tried to do). The problem is, things just escalated out of control after that. Maybe you're right about the chemistry stuff... I don't know... but in the process of adding that information, you broke multiple very important rules we have on wikipedia. One thing that will be important for you to understand before you're unblocked is that we need sources for everything we add to an article, and secondary sources are better than primary ones. Information that comes from a wikipedia editor, and not from a published reliable source is considered self published or original research. A second problem is the way you continually reverted other editors, breaking the 3 revert rule in the process; that's a blockable offense on its own. It's important to follow the BRD cycle when adding content. That means, after you are reverted, then go to the talk page and discuss it before adding the content again. Lastly, personal attacks are never acceptable on wikipedia. Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and assuming good faith is important. Focus on content, not on contributors. I'll retire from your page and allow you to discuss these matters with other editors, but if you have any questions for me or need any other help I can provide, feel free to post back here asking. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I assure you I didn't have any interest in you being blocked." Well that's a blatant lie, if that was true, you would not have reported me. "That's why I posted such polite and engaging messages to your talk page first (or at least, that's what I tried to do)." I've never used a talk page before, I didn't even know what it was until today. "Secondary Sources are better than Primary ones" I know many many many people with PhD's who would completely disagree with you on that. "A second problem is the way you continually reverted other editors, breaking the 3 revert rule in the process; that's a blockable offense on its own." A rule I've never heard of until a few hours ago. "Focus on content, not on contributors." I could say the same about you and your attack on my first-hand knowledge of chemistry. Saying first hand information is not reliable is like saying "We can't quote Einstein on his theory of relativity, because we need to someone to quote Einstein before we can verify his theory of relativity" You are using completely backwards logic. If a person wrote a chemistry book, you wouldnt say "you need to cite a source other than yourself" Because THEY ARE WRITING THE BOOK BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE TO WRITE THE BOOK!!! SchicagoS (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I wrote a textbook on C/C++, then I edited a wiki and cited myself as a source of C/C++... would you really think it is logical to ask me to cite the textbook that I wrote on C/C++? I hope not, because the text book is citing ME as the source of the information. It is completely backwards logic to say that secondary sources are worse than primary sources. Anyone who has been to college knows this.SchicagoS (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we would require you to cite the book as a source so that other users could verify it. Additionally, our COI policy would apply. If you're looking for a community where recognized experts edit the articles, you may be looking for scholarpedia; wikipedia doesn't operate that way. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you bothered reading WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:V? If not, I suggest you do. Jess is completely correct in his assessment of policy and has been quite polite in explaining it to you. Your choices are to heed his advice and follow policy or to argue and ignore it and either now or in the future get indefinitely blocked. Another policy you need to get is WP:AGF. If you keep making comments about administrator corruption and don't stop arguing when more experienced editors explain how things are done then your career here will be very short lived. You may not agree with the way things are done, but our policies have been built on 10 years of discussion and you're not going to unilaterally change, nor ignore, them. SÆdon ^talk 22:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also follow the advice in your unblock request denial. You need to demonstrate that you understand and will adhere to policy or you will not be unblocked, and if you can't do so and if you give cause to believe that when you return you will continue being disruptive then an administrator may simply increase your block length to indefinite. SÆdon ^talk 22:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "Higher power" I didn't mean "the email of website admin". I could get the rules to the website changed, get the way wikipedia operates changed, and have you all taken out of power and have your accounts deleted. Trust me, I am not the type of person you want to mess with.SchicagoS (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds far too much like a threat to me - if you continue with this approach, I will raise your block to indefinite and will revoke your ability to edit this Talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has that kind of power here and your threats just make you seem childish. Any editor who has been here for a month knows quite well that that's not how things work on WP. SÆdon ^talk 23:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't have that kind of power....

Facepalm What you don't get, because you're new, is that anyone who has been here knows for a fact that no one has that kind of power, so no one will take that threat seriously. You really think you're the first editor to get blocked who claims to hold this sort of power? Please, you're one in a long line of disgruntled editors who make threats to attempt to get their way. It has never, and will never work. The founder of this site, User:Jimbo Wales, doesn't have the sort of power you're talking about, and you expect anyone to believe that you, a blocked editor, does? Grow up.SÆdon ^talk 23:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What Jess was trying to say is: on Wikipedia, we need to cite reliable sources. Since we have no way of verifying your credentials, we cannot take your word for the things you're adding to an article, so even if you're Einstein, you'll have to cite a source. If you happen to be the author of a scientific paper, you may be able to cite yourself (i.e. cite your paper), but it would be better if you cited a secondary source. We're also, as an encyclopedia, focussing on established science, so Mr Einstein, when he first proposed his theory of relativity, couldn't have added it to Wikipedia as it wasn't established science back then.

FWIW: many chemistry books cite sources. I have, e.g., a copy of "Advanced Organic Chemistry" by F.A. Carey and R.J. Sundberg sitting on my bookshelf that does just that. You also need to cite sources when you're writing a thesis. Or when you're publishing papers. The stuff you needn't cite there - your own research - is the stuff you cannot add to Wikipedia articles because it's not established science yet. --Six words (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, absolutely, you would need to cite your C++ book as the source - this is an encyclopedia which only contains material that is cited from reliable sources, and not a place to publish material directly from assurance of personal expertise. You need to understand that, and also understand that this is supposed to be a collegial project where we assume good faith and try to work together. And yes, you fell foul of rules that you didn't know about - well, that happens to all of us when we are starting new things, and the way to deal with it is to listen and learn rather than getting angry and lashing out at people trying to explain how things work. If you continue with your insistence that Wikipedia has to work your way when people with far more experience are telling you otherwise, and you continue attacking people and calling them liars and/or corrupt, then you are going to have your block escalated and might even lose your ability to edit this Talk page. I strongly suggest you take a break, come back when you are not feeling so angry, and start listening to the people who are actually trying to help you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If you continue with your insistence that Wikipedia has to work your way when people with far more experience are telling you otherwise, and you continue attacking people and calling them liars and/or corrupt, then you are going to have your block escalated and might even lose your ability to edit this Talk page. I strongly suggest you take a break, come back when you are not feeling so angry, and start listening to the people who are actually trying to help you. " Far more experience with Wikipedia, maybe... but not far more experience with the internet overlords.SchicagoS (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(escalation of edit conflict...) There's a classic cartoon whose caption is "On the internet, no-one knows you're a dog". We don't know that you have this knowledge until you can back it up with some proof. The person who has written the chemistry book doesn't just get it published without it being checked carefully first by the publisher - they don't want to find they've printed 10,000 books that are wrong. We don't want to take the word of someone totally unknown to us. We could check the info out - but if the person posting it does that, it saves us time. You know the stuff, you find a text that agrees with you, that text has been written by someone who knows the stuff, and it's been checked before being published - no problems. We rely on people like you finding things that are wrong - that's how I got into Wikipedia editing. I found some drivel in an article, got rid of it, and explained why on the talk page. You wouldn't believe how much editing goes on to keep things accurate here. Believe me, we do want people who have knowledge. But we need them to be people who can fit in with the community and the way we work. Would you trust a statement made in Septimus Q. Hardwick's blog? Who he? I don't know either (actually, I do - he doesn't exist - I made him up). I could start a blog as him. No-one would know the difference. We don't trust blogs. We don't trust forums. Someone comes up to you and tells you to buy shares in the Consolidated Earwax Corp. If he's your Uncle Humphrey, you might believe him (unless your Uncle Humphrey is well known in the family for getting things wrong...). If you don't know him at all, would you buy them? But if he can show you copies of the Financial Times, and the Wall St Journal, and they show that Consolidated Earwax is about to get a big BIG contract from the Pentagon, is that different? It's evidence. Proof that he's not just making it up. Einstein didn't just say "There you are: E=MC^2". He wrote pages of proof, and referred to the work of others. Newton referred to "standing on the shoulders of giants". Do what the forensic people do - give us the evidence. (Anyone bid for the serial rights to this yet?) Peridon (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well...Einstein wouldn't have been able to put E=mc² in Wikipedia anyway. Original research and synthesis! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY MY FUCKING POINT, I PUT ORIGINAL RESEARCH ON HERE AND I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH IT WITHOUT CITING SOURCES OTHER THAN ME!SchicagoS (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The system is still flawed, For instance, even if I cite a book.... is there anyone checking the citation of the book? Or if I know for a fact that the perks of being a wallflower was written under a pseudonym and Steven Chbosky is just a cover story for the main character, Charlie, who happens to be the real author of the book... how do you falsify that? Einstein can cite himself as a first hand source of information but I can't? That's paradoxical. Or if I cite a chemistry book, do you have someone going through and fact-checking the book that I cited? If I write about halogenation of methane and draw my information from several sources, one from a chemistry book, and one from lectures that I watched of a Yale professor... you're saying that obviously I cant cite the Yale lecturer/lecture for the process of free radical halogenation, even though HE is the source of information for the chemistry book?! That's stupid, completely idiotic at best.SchicagoS (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's also completely flawed logic, Einstein didn't cite Newton every time he mentioned gravity in his papers... ya know why? Cause it was common knowledge that Newton had published work on gravity. There was no need to cite Newton. In wikipedia there is a need to cite yourself because your account needs to be verified to show that it is the person making the edits is making the edits. SchicagoS (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Your continuing demands to be allowed to publish your original research here in blatant opposition to Wikipedia's No Original Research policy make it clear you have no intention of contributing to the project in an acceptable manner, so I have increased your block to indefinite. And as you are not using this Talk page to address the reasons that got you blocked, but instead to shout and swear at us, I have removed your ability to edit it. I wish you success in finding a more appropriate outlet for publishing your research. If you wish to appeal this, you will need to consult WP:BASC. Or the Internet overlords. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]