User talk:Anaphylaxis2014

Welcome!
Hello, Anaphylaxis2014, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

August 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Materialization (paranormal), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of non constructive edits, I think your message belongs to this category. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Materialization (paranormal). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn talk 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Well, you're the one not respecting discussions here by just removing the dubious tag before the situation is solved. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 12:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Block is for 24 hours. Perma-link to WP:3RRNB report is here.   12:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia will always have shit articles like that. It's how consensus works. Don't stress yourself and work on something worthwhile instead. JMP EAX (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that was interesting. People are more interested in protecting their beliefs than establishing what is true or not, but I had not experience it from inside Wikipedia before. This random article seemed a good place to start, as it is quite controversial. Now I know that bad articles are not just the result of a lack of contributions, but they are also due to lobbying. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Most edit warriors make similar claims. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't blame them. They probably also met idiots like you. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it hilarious that you feel so empty that, even while I am blocked and cannot edit Wikipedia, you still cannot resist the desire to come here on my own talk page. That's because deep inside you, you know you are nobody. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Anaphylaxis2014, go and work on something worthwhile that smart people would want to read, like, say, quantum tunneling or mass-energy equivalence. (Despite their length, both articles still need plenty of work.) Or perhaps even teleportation. JMP EAX (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks. If there is no way to fix false statements in Wikipedia, I will certainly not waste my time on even more important articles, that would only frustrate me further. You don't seem as disagreeable as others, so I wish you a good day. Bye. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The catch is that Wikipedia is based on sources. For a crap topic like Materialization (paranormal), for which I couldn't even find a way to source its scope/definition (in the 60 seconds I was willing to actually search for it specifically Google Books), you'll only find kooky "pro" sources and "meh" debunking sources, none of which are likely to be written by the brightest physicists (and this is an understatement). Given your self-declared narrow interest in such a WP:FRINGE topic, other editors will rightfully assume your not really here to improve Wikipedia's coverage of physics, but only to stir the pot on a pseudoscience topic. Your wikicareer will probably be very short as a result of that. JMP EAX (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)