It appears that I cannot post a comment until after a volunteer has been assigned to the dispute. Is this correct? Prephysics (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Thanks for the notice. What are you implying?
Prephysics (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia generally tries to follow the scientific mainstream. New ideas not yet covered by major publications should try to find recognition and acceptance elsewhere before you try to present them here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Credibility and integrity is not a new idea. Are you saying that Wikipedia's policy of, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." is a new idea?
WP:V and WP:NOR should answer your questions. Recently you made this edit at Superdeterminism. You have cited a 'peer-reviewed article by researcher Manuel S Morales.' There do not seem to be any hits for Manuel S. Morales in Google Scholar. Wikipedia has no article on the International Journal of Fundamental Physical Sciences though we do have an article on the Physical Review. It does not appear that the ideas of Manuel Morales have yet reached the mainstream. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this is about hits? How many would you like and by whom and who decides what is mainstream and what you are allowed to think, Ed Johnston?
The Wikipedia community decides. Our current consensus is embodied in WP:FRINGE, which is backed up by the WP:ARBPS decision. In case of doubt we try to reach a talk page consensus. It is usually not difficult to distinguish mainstream thinking from fringe thinking. Far-out ideas may eventually become mainstream, but we are not the place for them to seek early recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have reverted nine times at Superdeterminism since 10 September. You have repeatedly added material to the article that no one else supports. If this continues, any administrator may decide to block your account for WP:Edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are a bit late to the game dear Ed. We have progressed this situation to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You can save us all the hassle by supporting your opinions on this matter by conducting the thought experiment in real life. If you are successful in violating the laws that govern our existence then I will believe anything you have to say on the matter. Please let me know when you wish to support your position.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Here is the evidence of your continuing to revert after being warned for edit warring. If you have no intention of following Wikipedia policy, you may be blocked indefinitely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2015 (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).
Ed your blocking attack is biased due to the fact that you did not block the other editors who have initiated the editing war you wish to impose. Either do the same to all involved or remove your block. Prephysics (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
One request at a tiem, please. Max Semenik (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2015 (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.
You are on one side of this war but there are three people on the other side. If a different admin thinks anyone else should be sanctioned, they should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2015 (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).
The editors who have initiated this war are in conflict with Wikipedia's core policy of verifiable content which supersedes editors from taking sides. Either Wikipedia's core policy is upheld or it should no longer be considered an encyclopedia source. The double standard you and others wish to impose is transparent and should be reported to the proper authorities, if there are any here. Prephysics (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
The policy is very simple: you just don't edit-war. There is no exception for verifiability. Also, you weren't only adding a reference, you were also adding a text with it. Max Semenik (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2015 (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).
Going by your statement, all parties involved should be blocked since you cannot have an editing war by yourself. Secondly, text needs to be associated with reference. Any editor would know this. And finally, I agree with you, "There is no exception for verifiability." all the more reason why verifiability should not be censored. Prephysics (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
More of the same silly stuff that Firstcause(talk·contribs·count) attempted to push elsewhere (wow, what a coincidence). If you continue to edit-war your fringe theories into article against consensus, the next block will be much longer. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:59, 16 September 2015 (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.
If editors at Wikipedia outright refuse, as exhibited by Ed Johnson and others, to adhere to Wikipedia's core policy then perhaps Wikipedia should no longer be an encyclopedic source.
avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of userequire disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
All I see here are individuals who are using secondary policies to undermine the core policy of Wikipedia regarding verifiable content in order to suit their bias. Not a single opinion or sub-policy can undermine facts that are unambiguous. Case in point, every single "editor" has openly failed to conduct the Final Selection Thought Experiment to contest if their opinions supersede the laws that govern our existence. Yet for some perverse reason they seem to think that verification policies overrules verification itself?
'"Prephysics" insists repeatedly that everyone has to perform his "experiment" himself, thus convincing himself that the position of "Prephysics" is The Absolute Truth (above all policies); and at the same time he repeatedly refuses to clarify, how to perform this "experiment", and how to interpret the results.'
This is the reason (not "perverse"). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create the laws that govern our existence nor will I accept opinions from those who wish to make up their own facts. You Boris, have repeatedly and openly shown that you lack integrity by not supporting your opinions via the thought experiment. Of course I don not blame you for your shameful behavior. It is expected from those who think that their opinions supersede reality.
I've asked you more than once to clarify, how to do it, during the moderated content discussion. Also the moderator did. You just did not reply. This is why I did not perform your experiment. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please do not go there Boris. Your pretense is openly transparent. The thought experiment was designed for those who can think for themselves and for those who lack such capacity to conduct the thought experiment in real life in order to understand that no one is entitled to their own opinions for the only source of superdeterminism is nature itself.
For some ("perverse"?) reason you are inattentive to questions. Why did you miss your chance on the discussion? A quote therefrom (asked by the moderator; emphasis is mine):
If the experiment has been described in reliable secondary sources and can be included in Wikipedia, then the description of the experiment should also state whether it is intended to prove the existence of free will, and thus disprove hard determinism and discredit superdeterminism, or whether it is intended to disprove free will, and thus prove hard determinism, which is consistent with quantum superdeterminism. As it is, while the description of the experiment is long, it isn't clear to the moderator what the experiment is intended to prove or disprove (let alone that it has been published).
One evident conjecture is: you refuse to clarify the meaning of your "experiment" since it is meaningless. Do you confirm this? Any alternative conjectures? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, at last I see here your answer to the question, WHAT the experiment is intended to prove or disprove. A great progress! Now the second half of the question: HOW does it prove the claim? Another quote from the closed discussion:
As for me, it looks like "2+2=4, therefore free will does not exist".
Boris, you claim to be well versed in mathematics. Is this true?
Prephysics (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-? Rather unexpected question... well, no (math is huge); mostly, in some chapters of probability theory and functional analysis. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, irrespective of the above, may I ask you an equally unexpected question: do you happen to be familiar with Viktor van Niekerk? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hidden variable theory, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source is our own existence which means that anyone can openly verify if the assumptions that have been made in the past are correct or not. In order for anyone to refer to a source, it is impossible to do so without "first" making a selection. There is not a single thing we can do without first making a selection. This is as absolute as it gets.
Then review Bell's theorem for yourself. There you will find he did not factor the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive selection variables necessary to write his paper or to make his calculations. Without these two origin variables there would be no theorem... cart before the horse.
Please review term "verification". As it stands with Wikipedia's contradictory standards for verification anyone who wishes to manipulate its policies to suit their bias can easily do so thereby undermining Wikipedia as a valid encyclopedia.
But your "verification" means nothing here. The only things that count here are Wikipedia's takes on wp:verifiability and wp:consensus. Those who do not like Wikipedia's standards are free to go where other standards exist. Unless you can change the standards, that usually means elsewhere. - DVdm (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
""verification" means nothing here" - So you are confirming that Wikipedia is a false encyclopedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prephysics (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "verification" means nothing here. So we are confirming that Wikipedia is a "false-in-your-sense" encyclopedia. - DVdm (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you verify something that is not ambiguous using 3rd party comments (ambiguous) that are published by reputable sources (another ambiguity) to verify something that is not ambiguous? On top of that, Wikipedia uses "consensus" (ambiguity) to then confirm verification! I happen to agree with your original confirmation that Wikipedia is a false encyclopedia. Thank you for being honest.
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Max Semenik (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2015 (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).
I am here to edit misinformation that is in over abundance here. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a valid encyclopedia then it cannot allow its policies to be used to provide incorrect or biased facts. A free encyclopedia should not be used as a false encyclopedia. Censorship and blocking someone who is trying to provide accurate information only serves to question the validity of Wikipedia. Is this your intention MaxSem? Prephysics (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
No, you are not here "to edit misinformation that is in over abundance here", you are here to use Wikipedia to publicise your own opinions, which is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Moreover, since being blocked you have used talk page access to post content which at its best is a further attempt to publicise your "research", and at its worst meaningless gobbledygook, and it is also clear that your intention is not to start editing constructively, but rather to persist in doing the same kind of thing you have done hitherto. Since all this does not serve to improve the encyclopaedia, but simply wastes time of administrators assessing your unblock request, thereby preventing them from spending that time on more constructive work, your talk page access will be removed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2015 (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.
False information as always Ohnoitsjamie. I requested to and am now in the process of taking the censorship and false claims to a higher authority. Well known journal? What does that have to do with validity or reputable source? The "well known" journal that published the Higgs boson discovery published an erroneous discovery Carte blanche (see Pseudoscience at Best).
Hello, Prephysics. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Superdeterminism, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hidden variable theory, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
