User talk:TravelAlone
Welcome!
|
Original research
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Tests of special relativity, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Tests of special relativity. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Tests of special relativity, you may be blocked from editing. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Tests of special relativity. - DVdm (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Note - see also 158.39.3.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - DVdm (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Tests of special relativity 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 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 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. - DVdm (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
[edit]
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TravelAlone. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Over Aggressive editing by User:DVdm ?
[edit]This is all very interesting, how Dvdm over aggressively (?) edit very moderate complimentary editing when it do not fit the main stream view. My editing was partly due to the false claim on the Test of special relativity page claiming: "A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, ALL of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light" . This should be corrected to "A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, <ost of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light" . Still in science it is naturally important to also mention experiments going against the main stream view. Science is not a voting process, it is about better understanding this world. I referred to several experiments published in highly ranked academic publications, Dvdm could have looked up and read this. My editing and comment was fully in line with what these references told. One of the experiments was done by professors in physics by a well known academic institution in USA. The experiment was government funded over several years and published in quite prestigious publication. I simply claimed as these researchers claimed that their findings of anisotropic one-way speed of light not is in line with existing main stream theories, and that the experiment should be repeated.
As I actually expected my references and very moderate discussion on the topic got quickly deleted. Dvdm seems to prefer the false claim that "ALL of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light". A claim that anyone that have studied the topic open minded for some years know is false. Again I even stated that the main stream view was that the one-way speed is isotropic, but I wanted the page to also reflect that a series of experiments and physicist do not agree on this, and that the question is still open to research and debate. This Dvdm clearly do not like and prefer that wikipedia ONLY show the main stream view. Not even a few sentences backed up with references published in highly ranked academic publications will Dvdm let stand. I feel this is very sad as it weakens the credibility of wikipedia.
Please see the talk page of the page Tests of Special Relativity for a more detailed discussion.
December 2016
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ Rob13Talk 13:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)