User talk:Wwhat
Edit war
[edit]You are edit warring against consensus (see WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR in particular). The Big Bang is well-established as fact in science, and in no way a theoretical construct. I'd advise you to drop the stick before you get blocked. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Wwhat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
That the big bang theory is a theory is well known and widely accepted and it is in fact described on wikipedia as the bing bang theory, furthermore there are constant reminders that we have poor knowledge of the universe at large and in fact only 2 days ago the Nobel price was awarded for discovery that the universe is expanding at an increased rate, against the expectations, astrophysicist also had to adjust previous thinking and introduce dark matter and dark energy, both of which they admit are rather desperate attempts to explain observations that we don't really know how to explain. A great many times predictions made by the proponents of the big bang theory were shown to not correlate to observation, and they then quickly tried to adjust the theory to make it fit but this happens so frequently that you can at least say that it's a theory and not a fact. Additionally it seems that the big bang theory has gathered a cult following that is quite fanatic and willing to abandon scientific ethos for 'the cause' and I think this is illustrated by the extreme attempts they did/do to prevent me from a small edit of preceding the word 'theoretical' before the words 'big bang', with some silly argumentation like saying that calling the actual fact that the big bang theory is a theory 'misleading' and even suggesting it is a 'fringe theory' to point out the big bang theory is in fact a theory. At this point it's hard to not be reminded if the situation in the middle ages.
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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
Wwhat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As outlined very clearly above I was the one attacked for a doing a scientifically correct one word edit, I am aware it is annoying and untenable to have people constantly do undo's, and that some arbitration is necessary, but I expect wikipedia's administrators to review the actual situation, that is in my case a fanatic fight of a group against reality. This is NOT conservapidia where truth is some optional thing, and where some cause overrides that. My edit was a simply adding 'theoretical' before the words 'big bang', I also created an entry on the discussion page of the article in question immediately when it became clear people fought my edit, but instead of responding there people repeatedly undid my edit without valid reasoning (ie saying the big bang theory is not a theory only because you like it so much is not scientifically valid position), only after I was blocked did the one pivotal in my block feign a reasonable attitude by editing the discussion page, knowing full well that I cannot respond while blocked, I do think that that user's action should be reviewed in that regard for a possible temporary block of that user, since he clearly does show a nasty and poor attitude and a fanatical behavior. I also clearly and rationally pointed out why the big bang theory remains a theory, while those that fanatically attack my tiny edit do not display much rationality, especially in light of the scope of my edit. I really hope and yes expect administrators to take the time to actually review this case including the part that others, including the once complaining on my talk page, played. for me this case is about respecting science and scientific ethos. I know this block expires shortly but it's the principle of having an unfair block stand in my history. I also know that the best option would have been asking for mediation, but it should have been those questioning my edit that should have discussed it on the discussion page or asked for mediation, and in the end asking for mediation over a single scientifically correct word seems madness to me. Wwhat (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
None of this is relevant. You were edit warring. You were warned; you continued; you were stopped. We have no patience for that around here at all. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
Wwhat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
see above. (And note that I was 'warned' by the guy who was heading the war, which shows the last admin's effort in looking at the damn situation.) This is beyond believable, I am attacked in an edit war by a group of clever jerks and I get blocked then patiently and poignantly explain the situation and ask a fair and reasonable review after pointing out that I did my best and as a result I get a bunch of small-minded people who seem to only wish to reject appeals, rather than look at the issue and decide on the basis of the actual issue. Then they add snide remarks as if they own wikipedia. You certainly managed to open my eyes on the reliability of wikipedia, all you need is a few friends or cultmembers and you can happily edit the most bizarre nonsense and block scientifically verifiable correct edits at will. Seems that those that like to piss on science and reality win in the end then. It's another proud moment for humanity. I'm quite disgusted by the disappointing lack of regards for reason. Note that I actually tried to go through a mediation process eventually, but I cannot enter a request while blocked I found, but seeing that the last admin that rejected me and who did such a poor effort used to be on a mediation committee I think it's clear I might as well forget about that and let science quietly die on wikipedia and let cult formed pseudo science win. Wwhat (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wwhat, you're not hearing what we're saying. You weren't blocked because of the content you were adding--you were blocked because you kept adding the same content over and over again, even though 4 different users disagreed with you. That is the problem. Since Wikipedia allows open editing, it requires that, when disputes arrive, editors discuss them to try to reach consensus, not just keep making the same edit over and over again. Your block is going to automatically expire in about 13 hours. At that point, you will be welcome to come back and discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Note that if you start trying to edit war on the article again you'll be blocked. This is a behavioral policy, and one that makes no exception simply because you believe you're right. So, please, just wait a little while longer, try to understand why we have to block people who won't engage in collegial consensus building (otherwise, everyone would just edit war forever every time they though they were right), and, when the block is up, go to the article's talk page to try to persuade everyone else why your version is better. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
Suggestion
[edit]Three uninvolved and experienced administrators have declined your unblock request. It's a suggestion - just start editing after 24 hours and take care not to revert more than three times in a 24 hour period. Regards. Wifione Message 09:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)