User talk:WikiRat1

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caratacus, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caratacus.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caratacus

I'm chipping in as a mediator. IF you agree with me working on the case, please drop a note stating so on my talk page. -- Drini 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox Test |name=Test |hebname=גלות }} Hebrew גלות 1546

Wolfram

Yeah, I simply forgot what Wikipedia is and, more imporatantly, what it is not. Go wild, it makes no difference. Genetics411 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC) PS. It would be more useful when you make threats to actually be correct. Your current revision is your third reversion (after it was deleted by someone else a few days ago). I have reverted twice. Don't worry, though. It's not worth the effort. Genetics411 17:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.} dave souza, talk 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of WP:3RR:

1st change [1] 00:10, 20 January 2007
1st reversion [2] 16:51, 20 January 2007
2nd reversion [3] 17:32, 20 January 2007
3rd reversion [4] 18:13, 20 January 2007
4th reversion [5] 18:42, 20 January 2007
5th reversion [6] 19:04, 20 January 2007
6th reversion Last [7] 19:43, 20 January 2007

Please stop reverting and start discussing on the talk page. Pete.Hurd 20:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for continuing to make such edits. pschemp | talk 04:06, 21 January 2007 (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).

WikiRat1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reverts were to restore valid edits. Last reverts were to restore NPOV tag - therefore block is unreasonable since it does not punish those who reverted my edits. It is one sided. I am willing to take this to dispute resolution if unblocked. Futhernotes on my talk page.

Decline reason:

3RR violation. -- Yamla 05:49, 21 January 2007 (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.

Natural Selection

In looking at the Natural Selection article, I noted that no criticism of the theory of natural selection was included. I originally added Stephen Wolfram’s criticisms in 1 brief paragraph but it was deleted. I restored it and flush it out to 3 paragraphs.

Stephen Wolfram is a well known, well respected scientist who has published in respected journals in Particle Physics, General Physics, Cosmology, Mathematics, Computer Science, Computational Theory, Complexity Theory, and Technical Computing, but he is not a biologist.

His criticism of Natural Selection is well articulated and appears throughout his 1268 page book but mostly in chapter 8 where he makes a case for its deficiencies. Although he doesn't through it out completely (he claims that natural selection can explain phenomena such the lengthening of bones) he claims it has limits (it cannot for example cause fundamental changes to an animal's morphology).

The contributions I made were reverted on the grounds that it was fringe, until I pointed out his online papers and peered reviewed work. It was then rejected on the grounds that he is not a biologists and asked to provide citations, which I did. I’ve also made my case on the discussion page.

I know of no policy stating that Wolfram needs to be. Basically he refutes the idea that individuals organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits (the whole these of the article), and proposes instead his own idea that organism exhibit traits because their evolution ultimately requires that all possible traits be exhibited, limited only by what is possible. He goes further than natural selection by showing why some traits are intrinsically stable and others not. By making his case he completely makes natural selection unnecessary and says so frequently.

My edits were also reverted because someone has pointed out the WP:Undue weight policy - and I agree with this, however since the article contains no other criticisms of the theory, and Wolfram’s view, though the minority position, is valid, it should be included in the interest of fairness because it suggests an alternative to natural selection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRat1 (talk • contribs)

What you don't get is that you are not allowed to keep inserting something into an article repeatedly when there is no consensus to do so. Additionally, you may not keep reverting to your preferred version multiple times in 24 hours no matter what the reason. pschemp | talk 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last insertions was an NPOV tag!? Since when is it possible to simply remove NPOV? This wikipedia has dispute resolution mechanisms, none of which were used. As an admin you are apparently showing your bias. No matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRat1 (talk • contribs)

3RR does not care what the actual content of the insertions was. You re-inserted that way more than 4 times in 24 hours. Spare me the admin bias cry, I've heard it before and anyone looking at your contributions will know better. pschemp | talk 05:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that here at 17:23, 20 January 2007 User:WikiRat1 himself invokes 3RR on the article's talk page to warn others against reverting his edit. Showing that he's well aware of the rule, but ignores it willfully, reverting five times after invoking it to preclude reversions of his edits. Pete.Hurd 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and those edits you are referring were efforts to restore justified contributions. I though we were suppose to 'encourage' contributions? My edits that were removed with no discussion. Clearly this is a one-sided issued. Apparently balance in the Natural Selection article is too much to ask. I don't yet see any section outlining criticisms of the subject of the Article. I tried to include a valid science criticism, but apparently Natural Selection is beyond criticism. The message this sends is that it is perfectly alright to remove someone's contributions with no recourse to discussion. WikiRat1 06:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR. Carefully. .. dave souza, talk 08:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]