User talk:3LevelChess

With all due respect, there is an extraordinary set of circumstances surrounding this page and a recent set of discoveries that call for the setting aside of certain rules and guidelines as regards posted changes on Wikipedia needing some sort of 'published' verification.

The most recent ABC NEWS release detailing a recent Science Discovery has changed everything about "all related published science as a whole making it such science wholly innacurate:

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1942665.htm

This ABC News release so changed the picture it is simply innacurate to consider any so-called related published science of the past as applicably valid or relevant until corrected and rewritten for the ensuing innacuaracies.

What innaccuracies? All related published science all the way back to perhaps Copernicus is now considered suspect and possibly innacurate because the very foundations were based upon wrong science. The ABC News article makes clear that published science has been utterly and completely wrong about which way we were going in space.

Furthermore, since no innacurate published science is a valid proof or substantiation to a new discovery, it becomes a moot point, and therefore in the interests of true accuracy of scientific thought on said topics, a moratorium on such overcorrection of this page citing infraction of rules is indicated.

Thank you.

June 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. --Diniz (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned on Talk:Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy, deleting another user's comment on a talk page is a rather excessive response to a single word of mild profanity. In addition, the ABC news release you cite does not justify the changes you made to the parent article; it doesn't even mention Matthew Perkins Erwin, to whom your text gives full credit.12.107.75.130 21:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We are in a bit of a pickle in that those deleting and/ or amending the page are either apparently lacking the I.Q. to allow comprehension of the discoveries involved ( or ) are not attempting to -- based out of sheer ignorance-- I cannot pretend to know which. It simply is not possible to link to a better verification than the ABC News Release Link that lays to waste all related science as innacurate that normally would have been the substantiation point. http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1942665.htm

Please make an effort to understand this point. Science has now admitted that it has been basing its entire foundation upon these innacuracies. Matthew Perkins Erwin is quoted because without his efforts and contiuing efforts to get this information out, the world will not know or be told because so much is involved in the rewriting of all science all the way back to Copernicus -- all the science books and publications. Course material taught in schools to children and college students in top dollar courses will be bogus.

The actual true cause of Global Warming is presented herein which could change the course of history (or not)-- all because of choices made here by us few here on this page.

You have a responsibilty to the truth and the future. Choose wisely.


 * Please don't keep reverting this. I was perhaps too elliptical in my edit comment: you should be aware that there is a rule on Wikipedia against reverting an article more than three times in a 24-hour period.  You might have better luck getting a version of your comments to stick if you (a) include a relevant and reliable reference or references (i.e., that explicitly mention the controversial points in your text; a link that doesn't even mention the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy is unlikely to cut it), and (b) rewrite the text in line with the standard practices of Wikipedia, especially regarding "Neutral point of view".  And I would not recommend crediting Mr. Erwin without a source written by a (reliable) third party crediting him with this alleged discovery.  If your fellow editors are failing to see the merits in your contribution, then you clearly haven't been sufficiently clear; simply reinserting the same text over and over again is not going to convince us! 12.107.75.130 23:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"And I would not recommend crediting Mr. Erwin without a source written by a (reliable) third party crediting him with this alleged discovery."

The actual true cause of Global Warming is presented herein which could change the course of history (or not)-- all because of choices made here by us few here on this page.

You have a responsibilty to the truth and the future. Choose wisely.

Did you ever hear the true story of the man who discovered why all the women were dying in childbirth? They were dying by the thousands.

He discovered germs. All would either not hear of it and/or thought of how they could be actually guilty of causing a string of deaths themselves as medical practitioners. Medical practitioners would not wash their hands going between ill and diseased patients and those child birthing. The result? the knowledge was suppressed and thousands upon thousands more women died simply because these haughty human beings all decided to quash the data -- those entrusted with overall academic authority who would not allow the new data to be published.

The discoverer? He died penniless, and watched thousands more women die out of deliberate ignorance.

What a race I belong to!


 * "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan


 * 12.107.75.130 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy violate Wikipedia's policies regarding original research, as well as the three-revert rule. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and a link to a non-technical news page irrelevant to both the topic of the article and the topic of the research you are adding does not come close to qualifying. Stop it. ～J.K. 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)