User talk:DisciplinedIdea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Edits[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at universe. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

I’m all but unfamiliar with contributing to Wikipedia at large. I am far from unfamiliar with the treatment I get on the internet. You’re couching your ideological battle here in formalities masking lies. I knew I wouldn’t easily be permitted to contribute here. Knowing how these things go, I made my first shot a really solid one. I put a good deal of effort and time into my initial contribution to the “Universe” page. My expertise made it possible at all. It was reverted, of course. That user described it as “certainly valid” and “good faith,” but needing discussion.

As that contributor made no effort to start the discussion, or to address the merits of my contribution in any other way, nor did any other user, I spent this morning researching what that might look like for me. I found out that Wikipedia encourages Bold edits. Great, I was in the right all along. If I didn’t make the bold suggestion the discussion would have had nowhere at all to go: clearly, finding people qualified to address the dispute is going to be a challenge. I found out, also, that Wikipedia discourages “biting” newbs. You have bitten me, and repetitively. With no hint of suggestion that you have considered the substance of the dispute. I spent the morning researching and composing what I thought was the appropriate course of action. I did not propose the article for deletion as I had inter alia thought about during my brainstorming of what to research/do.

I’ve brought a fairly rare degree of expertise to this article; put in significant effort to get the Wikipedia format, style, and content, correct; and I’ve acted according to the stated policies of the Site.

You have trashed all that with a few easy clicks here and there. I’m used to it (in general, and precious little with Wikipedia too), and don’t know how to formally chasten you, so… Either I have to put in another long slog of research to see how I can “fight” you (in this totally off topic way), or let you walk away with the easy “win.” Win: so the page can keep misleading kids into thinking retarded thoughts about themselves and their world.

You call my contributions here disruptive. I’ve made two. The first reverter, again, characterized the first of those as “certainly valid” and “good faith,” but needing discussion. You say my second was a revert to the first, but it was not. Far from it. A straight up lie you utter, because who is going to check you (for me)? Based on your lie, you characterize my contributions as disruptive? Without ever suggesting you are capable of judging the matter, or showing an evidence that you even considered them, you characterize my contributions as disruptive and bury them. On the contrary, your contribution on the universe talk page suggests … I’ll get over there before too long, I pray.

For now, it is you who is being disruptive and breaking site policy to silence me, and all but completely. I have to hear “universe, universe” every damn where, but you can’t even tolerate the tag “disputed.” It’s a real travesty, bra. We co-create reality as we go. Universe makes people think that’s the absurd take. But go ahead, try to defend the term “Universe” with a scientifically rigorous source.

I didn’t think so.

“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”-Max Plank

https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up (thanks to whichever user originally brought this on to the site, and to whichever user got it to stay where I very recently found it)

The term universe has no scientific merit, because such absurdity admits of no accurate definition.

You should take this as your warning.

DisciplinedIdea (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, Wikipedia is meant for rendering accepted knowledge, not weird musings, see WP:1DAY, nor WP:FRINGE insights. The fact that you don't understand why your edits are problematic does not prevent admins from showing you the door. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Neighbor, if you are not qualified to address the substance, listen to those that are:

“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”-Max Plank

https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up

DisciplinedIdea (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Sooner or later you will be imperatively told by admins to take your business elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon DisciplinedIdea: Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Universe. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your reply to Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ "...don’t lay your filthy hands on me..." was a personal attack. --ChetvornoTALK 02:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Daniel (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Of course I should be unblocked. Without question or debate. It has taken a gang of five or six people (at least) working in cahoots to put the, and indefinite, block on my account. They have spent, collectively, a modest amount of time and effort to Avoid the substance I brought. Everything they’ve said is all “just show.” Give the appearance of my impropriety, all the while they themselves are the ones really transgressing, and so many, standards of the site (I see all those reverts). This is an extreme example of really common stuff, nowadays. Touch a nerve, get your heal bit. This is what Evil (being outside the will of God) looks like. It’s ubiquitous. But they won’t let you say it. So who is there to judge fairly? If I were judged fairly, my hands are cleaner than every single one of this gang who ganged up on me. My two dusty hands for Warren’s two filthy hands. “Indeffed” (I learned we say here). What should happen to them if we really go to the replay? Anyway, this is just how the universe works, eh? Simple mechanics through and through? Until I edited the universe page no one questioned that I was making substantive contributions to the building of this encyclopedia. A review of my contributions, 21 (22 with this request) would take less time and effort than piecing together everything that this gang has done to hang the block on me. A cursory review should be enough to overturn the block. If we were being fair. If we weren’t waging ideological warfare. As for the “offending” contribution about the absurdity of the “Universe,” I get that it will be well nigh impossible to find qualified judges for That review. Might I suggest: if we can get a majority of the authors from this paper to agree that I should be unblocked and allowed to defend myself (not to mention having my precious work re-reverted), then it should follow whatever the Wikipedia consensus may be? Who’s gonna’ ask ‘em? https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.035702 https://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.035702 I’m almost embarrassed to admit that I have been pushing this “no such thing as the universe” thingk for almost 20 years now. I mean, I can defend myself in my own language all day (classical 3D systemics are too stupid for life), but I only just “very recently” found that quote I needed to be able to say f-~~you~~-the-universe in one facile sentence (which I needed to Challenge such authoritarian thugs). “The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”-Max Plank, translated by Alexander Ogg https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up DisciplinedIdea (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you're just going to repeat attacks on other editors at great length, you won't be unblocked. This is about your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2024 (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.

Reply

11 minutes to decline. “This is about your conduct.”

I Beg to differ. I request an independent reviewer. Please point out what I did wrong. Please tell me why that mandates an indefinte block. I know what that gang has said of me. I never interacted with any of them (save the original one who has been silent since then!).

I made two loose “talk” contributions, one to my talk page, after I was Warned about disruptive edits for edits that were challenging, but not disruptive. I made the second “talk” contribution, to the same other editor, under the appropriate talk page and section, after said editor had broken the rules to disrupt my non-disruptive attempts to contribute. Then a whole gang of other people jumped on me, for him, and when I didn’t bite their hooks, they conspired to fabricate a fiction that wouldn’t be worthy of an indefinite block if it were true. What did I do wrong? And how is that worthy of a ban? These other boys are lying. That is possible. You see how long they have all been here? Is this really too disruptive to tolerate (from a newb)? And is one such “disruption” alone enough for a perma-ban?! (fulfilled science will vindicate me):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=prev&oldid=1225941388

Independent review, Please!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DisciplinedIdea&action=history

DisciplinedIdea (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved reply out of decline reasonEducatedRedneck (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The gist is that this website isn't meant for pushing New Age mysticism dressed up as science. That's basically your only mistake (well, except those nasty words). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply

My bad, I did “interact” with you, g. Once. After you welcomed me and all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DisciplinedIdea&diff=prev&oldid=1226000609

But that’s it, those three “talk” interactions with that Gang.

>That's basically your only mistake (well, except those nasty words)

you can stand here and, not-independently, call my words nasty, but if you list them, and give them context, I said noting inappropriate, much less intolerable. Be very explicit for us if you want me to consider otherwise. Tough, sure. Critical, you bet ya. Frustrated, for a handful of presidential terms.

But anyway, do you advocate for this perma ban? Based on your characterization that my work (which work? just the universe page? Or all the stuff that was reverted?) was:

>The gist is that this website isn't meant for pushing New Age mysticism dressed up as science.

I’m telling you, it’s not controversial that thermodynamics applies to equilibrium systems. I haven’t talked about this, to be sure, because that may have been disruptive, but we have no science for non-equilibrium thermodynamic-like phenomena! Believe it. Look it up. Non controversial: science is a work in progress. Not settled. And Max Plank, the world-famed new-age pseudo-scientist, tells us that you can't define a system to cover the universe. There is no such universe. It is a meaningless term!

Ask some guys expert on phase-change how limited science is? Wikipedia consensus knows better? None of your gang has addressed my contribution substantively. The closet y’all came was saying the section on astronomy had like 10 reliable references. So be it, my argument stands. I had edited the intro and definition sections of the page, which remain unjustified and unjustifiable.

Nasmaste,

DisciplinedIdea (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DisciplinedIdea. I'm not familiar with the original dispute, but I think I see where there's a disconnect. You write, Ask some guys expert on phase-change how limited science is? Wikipedia consensus knows better? I think this is where there's a communications breakdown. Wikipedia is not about what's true, only what the sources say. This took me a while to reconcile with my own background, but it's an essential part of fitting in on this website. So if Wikipedia came to a consensus that 1+1=3, and had reliable sources to back that up, then that's what would be published. There's plenty more nuance and I can elaborate if you like, but I know this was (for me, at least) the hardest part of adjusting to Wikipedia; that it doesn't matter what's right, only what the preponderance of reliable sources say. I hope this helps clear some thing up, and my apologies if this message is unwelcome. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EducatedRedneck (et. al),

>I’m not familiar with the original dispute

Thank You kindly for admitting that!!! I welcome you to (be the first to) familiarize yourself with my dispute! It should take significantly less effort than I put into generating it!

>(for me, at least) the hardest part of adjusting to Wikipedia, [was] that it doesn’t matter what’s right, only what the preponderance of reliable sources say.

The term “universe,” itself, was unsourced before I edited the page, and it remains unsourced now. There are only hand-wavy claims in defense of it. The source I suggested is no slouch:

“The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.”-Max Plank, translated by Alexander Ogg

https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonthermo00planrich#page/100/mode/2up

But he says the term is unwarranted, which is devastating for the page so titled; and I am receiving a violent backlash for challenging peoples’ illusions of confidence in it.

>>Ask some guys expert on phase-change how limited science is?

To be sure, this isn’t a “rhetorical question.” Abnormal I’ll grant:

https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/faculty/nitash-balsara

https://patelgroup.seas.upenn.edu/people_amish.html

(anyone?) show us a reliable source justifying the notion of "universe" itself

DisciplinedIdea (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do not make our WP:RULES. You will get unblocked only if you accept to obey our WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply

tgeorgescu (in full),

>You do not make our WP:RULES. You will get unblocked only if you accept to obey our WP:RULES.

I cannot rightfully claim to understand all our WP:RULES. Nor can I promise to obey them without fail. What I can accept is the consequences of breaking them.

I don’t believe that I have broken any rules yet. I have gone well out of my way (in my ignorance) to be respectful of what I imagined they should be. Just because someone says I broke a rule doesn’t mean it’s true. I still firmly believe all my contributions have been within policy. If I were mistaken, I trust you would have already made it (very) clear. There are (at least) two sides to every story. Let me ask, though, if I am unblocked (let us pray…): would I be within rights to revert to these versions of the pages to which I had contributed (well-before my universe contributions)?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Holmes_Howison&oldid=1224208330

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teleological_argument&oldid=1224197624

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teleology&oldid=1225988408

And what, (may I sincerely ask?) do the rules say should happen to my Dispute?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&oldid=1225941388

Shalom,

DisciplinedIdea (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024[edit]

Your talk page access has been revoked. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #89386 has been declined. JBW (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DisciplinedIdea&oldid=1226975023"