User talk:D c weber

Newton's law of universal gravitation
You have repeatedly added material to this article which in my and other editors' opinion falls under the heading of fringe theory. For that reason your additions have been reverted. Please take your proposed changes to the article talk page instead of re-adding them to the article. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop it! Your actions can only be considered edit warring and if you persist you will be temporarily blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Tests of general relativity. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

See also the warnings on the talk page of

DVdm (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Tests of general relativity, you may be blocked from editing. The source you cite is not a wp:reliable source and the conclusion you make is a synthesis from a few sourced bits. - DVdm (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuvola apps important.svg You were contacted, and the feedback has been ignored. I removed the POV tag. The tag was placed in this article without adequate explanation. Also the tag appears to be a response to thwarted attempts of POV pushing. Placing that tag on this article might also be construed as disruptive editing. Please see WP:DE. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Tests of general relativity, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting this on hold for the minute. I'll ping the blocking admin for a more detailed rationale and then consider your request. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, Favonian's made his comment, so it's up to you now to persuade me (or any other admin) that the bloc is unjust and/or unnecessary. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment on your block
The subtitle of the "disruptive editing" shouldn't have been OR, though the editor has had problems on that front before. They have not been able to obtain consensus for the inclusion of their alternative views regarding the perihelion precession of Mercury and have reacted to this by attempting to add POV tags to Tests of general relativity. These have been challenged by other editors, but after a pause Weber renews their campaign. I considered this disruptive and in view of the editor's semi-long history of similar problems, I blocked them to give everyone a break. Favonian (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC) I apologise if I am not following the Wiki protocols, if I have done so. I am new to Wiki editing, and I am finding it difficult to add content within the established process being unfamiliar with it. The POV label added for the section is justified through the "UNDUE" definition by Wiki which states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The section called "Precession of Mercury" doesn't cover all viewpoints. In fact, there is only one viewpoint to the section. I'm not saying that most scientists believe that there is a smaller precession than Einstein predicts, but there is a minority. There has been recent calculations for the orbit of Mercury around the Sun, and it shows that the precession is much smaller than the calculated value back when Einstein formulated his theory and prediction of the orbit using that theory. The "UNDUE" says that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I can get a list of prominant adherants, but this will take awhile. At this point, I have a proposed additional wording in the talk section of Talk:Tests of general relativity. I asked for comment by the admin and of others. There has been no response on the talk page. Mr. Favorian says that the WP:OR does not apply. I also received a comment that the proposed addition was WP:SYN. But, this addition isn't a synthesis not stated by the source. The cited source _does_ state that there is only a small residual precession and it also states that this does not agree with the prediction of GRT. So, the source is making the statement, not me. Therefore, at this point, I don't know what is preventing the added wording that I am proposing. But, I appeal to you if you are a scientist, that all viewpoints be covered, not just the tests that agree with a theory.D c weber (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note. The cited source of this edit is this, or, if we allow for a typing error, this. You claim that it says that "there is only a small residual precession and it also states that this does not agree with the prediction of GRT." There are a few issues with this edit and the sources:
 * The first document (WebrDavd16.pdf) does not exist, whereas the second (WebrDavd15.pdf) contains a private corresponcence between yourself and J. Smulsky.
 * It is not a reliable source since the name WebrDavd1x of the file is clearly linked to you, and the site on which it resides (http://charles_w.tripod.com) is a private personal website belonging to a mr. Charles Weber, which I assume is you as well.
 * The conclusion you draw at the end of this edit ("The table 2 above shows that..." and "Thus, the orbital motion of Mercury is a poor test of GRT"), is based on numbers and statements found in different sources, and is not present in this other Smulsky source, nor in the aforementioned unreliable source, and is therefore a classic example of wp:SYNTHESIS, and thus wp:original research.
 * Even if it were no original research, your proposed addition to the article would put wp:undue weight on a fringe view.
 * All this was explained to you many times, and your persistent re-inserting of a POV-tag into the article, despite warnings by several contributors, was considered disruptive.
 * DVdm (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been more than sufficiently explained by User:DVdm. Furthermore, the content in Wikipedia science articles reflects the consensus view of researchers in the field. In other words, it reflects the mainstream science view. The sources provided by User:D c Weber are not reliable sources in the first place. Secondly, a sufficient number of reliable sources promoting his view must be presented. As it stands now there is a noticeable lack of reliable sources that support his view. Also, it is reccomended that Weber stay away from WP:SYN, as shown by User:DVdm Steve Quinn (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr. DVdm & Mr. Steve Quinn,
 * Thank you for your critique.
 * Regarding issues 1&2. I fixed the citations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Tests_of_general_relativity_theory. I had put in the wrong ones.
 * Regarding issue 3, you are reading the wrong suggested text. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Tests_of_general_relativity_theory - there is no mention of "..poor test of GRT."
 * Regarding your issue of "undue weight", please help me to word this in a way that would be acceptable. Should I say something at the end like?: "This recent calculation has not yet been independently confirmed, and so for now should be considered a minority (or fringe) view."
 * Please comment on my corrected proposal.
 * Dear Mr. Steve Quinn:
 * I don't think that your concern about concensus view applies. If Wiki only published the concensus view, then every article would be WP:POV. I think that it is important for this Tests_of_general_relativity to not give the impression that all scientists are in total agreement that the J.L. Simon or S. Newcomb precession calculations are the only true calculations by not including other verifiable calculations. D c weber (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that your concern about concensus view applies. If Wiki only published the concensus view, then every article would be WP:POV. I think that it is important for this Tests_of_general_relativity to not give the impression that all scientists are in total agreement that the J.L. Simon or S. Newcomb precession calculations are the only true calculations by not including other verifiable calculations. D c weber (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(Anon, please login with your registered username when making edits.) I notice that you replaced two of your personal sources with NPA sources. Perhaps you are not aware, but the NPA (http://www.worldnpa.org/main/) is not considered to be a reliable source by the mainstream physics community. As you can verify on their principles page, this is one of those extreme fringe organisations, having as one of its main principles: "Aside from virtually unanimous agreement that contemporary cosmology and physics--especially modern or 20th-century physics--are in dire need of a thorough overhaul...", and more interestingly: "The central theme that concerns nearly all members, both because of its highly honored position in current dogma and because its rather simple mathematics makes it comparatively easy to deal with, is special relativity (SR). A very large majority in the NPA believe it is seriously flawed, and a clear majority believe it is totally invalid. I earnestly subscribe to the latter view: SR has no validity whatsoever." (emphasis mine). Looking at the 12 remaining principles on the mission page, I think it is clear that this site represents an extreme fringe view. It seems that your main source (Smulsky) has two cited papers at NPA (see also this). Therefore mentioning a result from this source would still put wp:undue weight on a wp:fringe view. And again, even it were not fringe, it would still be a case of wp:SYNTHESIS, as you create a table from various sources, in order to show that general relativity has it wrong, so to speak. DVdm (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop reminding me on my user talk page of edits you make on article talk pages as you did here and here and here. I do maintain a watchlist. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please stop doing this. You never need to tell other editors of an ongoing discussion they have already participated in. If they are interested in it they will watchlist the page so they can easily find it again, or they will find some other way to check on it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Apologize to both. I thought I was being courteous.D c weber (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Reply. Alpha Quadrant   talk    19:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Newtonian Gravity and Light Bending
Hi, in regards to the question you asked on my talk page about Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Newtonian_physics_predicts_light_bending_around_massive_objects.3F

Unfortunately I have not recieved an answer to this question. Sorry it took me a bit to see your question, but better late than never, yes?--Δζ (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)