User talk:Helicoid

Warning
Pjacobi 20:46, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Don't change other people's posts on talk pages.
 * Watch your language.

Oh, stop editing other people's comments. You've done the same to me as well. And for personal attacks, I never did call you anything, so mind yours too. I bet my nationality is very relevant in this case. *rolleyes* -- Natalinasmpf 21:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop deleting my responses. Retract all the lies you have stated. Be civil, and I will be civil. Lie and make more false statements and I will continue to take you to task. It is part of your education. You will not forget it.Helicoid


 * Firstly, stop making erratic personal attacks either, and changing other people's comments. Unfortunately, you infused such changes with your own comments, so the revert cancalled it out. As for retracting my stance, how childish. You want to continue to commit what can be considered vandalism, simply because you can't stand my opinion? How ironic, this reminds me of the Inquisition. Part of my education? Take me to task? I'm about to put you up for RFC. -- Natalinasmpf 00:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the Inquisition is you, Mr. fake anarchist and fake-adolescent. You have vandalized everything I did, and more, vandalized gratuitously the reputation of the Correas and many other scientists in the process. I'm putting Ms. Knott on notice that I will now send a complete copy of these transcripts to the Correas and others.  A retraction of these fake claims by irresponsible Wikipedians and a restoration of my entry to a suitable middle term (not this abortion) is in order.

Is that a legal threat? Vandalism? I'm simply making the page conform to NPOV policy. I know its rather harsh for you because that's not your view, but then you simply work within the framework, as I do for communism. If you're going to be reasonable about it, rather than calling mainstream science a conspiracy, you could achieve your goal much faster. Oh, I suppose you don't know the Aesop's fable about the wind, the sun and the man with the coat? As for "fake anarchism", I'm not going to comment, and I'll point to you that you address me wrongly.-- Natalinasmpf 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 14 years my ass. Anarchist my ass. Communist perhaps, of the Bolshevik variety, no doubt. Anarcho-Communist? Make me not laugh! A simple-minded vandal. Yes.


 * Think what you like. If I were a vandal, I'd get blocked. I hate Bolshevism, but if you want to associate me with it, who am I to change your decision? Hopefully you'll learn a lesson from all this. If you want to go so far as to question my age, I don't care, because I'm just being honest and it doesn't matter if its two years old or 92 in the first place. As for legal threats, I'd advise you not to make them. -- Natalinasmpf 04:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made no threats. I am in no position to make them, even if I'd wish to. It's you who has invoked every authority and power that you could. This befits the fake anarchism.

2nd warning
You did it again: This is a blockable offense. --Pjacobi 23:45, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aetherometry&diff=next&oldid=15780108

He just did it a third time. I reverted. -- Natalinasmpf 00:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did what again? Correct a mispelling in your text or interact with your statements?

As it would be against policy to block him myself, I've reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Pjacobi 00:38, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally seeing the problem, but signing your post at the very top of the talk page with the usual ~ would be even more clear. --Pjacobi 00:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)


 * Even though I corrected it myself and you saw that, you're willing to report me. Nice.  Thank you. Will I be arrested? That's the point of the exercise in coercion isn't it? Very democratic.Helicoid.


 * What? Your actions are violating other people's freedoms, namely for a constructive NPOV encylopedia. Coercion? Irony. As for "reporting", its only concerning this site, not a law. Oh, Wikipedia isn't a government, either, so stop complaining. -- Natalinasmpf 02:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're the 'kid' with the revolver of power, suppression, the gratuitous claims of hoaxes and fake degrees. very convenient cover you got there. A Wikipedian cover, should I assume.


 * Very convenient cover? I'm not an admin. I don't have sysop power. I have just as much power as you do. I don't seee how that's "bearing a revolver of power", unless you mean the free time I can spend in a revert war, which I'd rather not do. -- Natalinasmpf 04:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that you can spend the time in a free revert war. Count me out on that one. You vote to approve now, I vote to delete. I've seen your vandalism in action. It deserves no respect.  It is stupid and malicious, and gratuitous and unfounded.  You have failed to respond adequately to every one of my challenges and questions. If you have no power, that's the way it should be.  But I suspect that such a forced opposition of weatherman, rotten Ms. Knott, and Jacobi mathematician (really?) is nothing but a power play.  As for me, let me tell you that your insinuation that I use sockpuppets, you can yourselves tell on the other side of the divide that I've been plugged here on the same IP all day long writing in the vain hope of educating you people.Helicoid 04:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Personal attacks and breaking the three revert rule are blockable offenses. Your edits to Aetherometry amount to personal attacks. Please remove them. Guettarda 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What edits? Helicoid


 * "Detractors of aetherometry who have not read the material state..." - you are attacking your fellow editors. Please remove these attacks.  Guettarda 01:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not a personal attack as far as I can see. Having said that, it's silly to have it in the article as no one can say who has read what Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 01:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess that you guys have now blocked me from history and editing the entry. Good show all around. Power - that's all that counts.


 * The page isn't locked, and if you can edit this page you aren't blocked. Guettarda 01:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell you aren't blocked at all and are perfectly free to edit. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 01:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good, Ms. Knott. And what's with the headings? not a block? by the way, have you noticed how the detractors of my free contribution have NOT read the material? Is it Wikipedia policy to assert dogmas about science and give the deciding power to those who vandalized my contribution to this pitiable extent? Helicoid.


 * You are not blocked from editing the headings. If you explain the problems you are having I can perhaps sort it out for you. As for people editing the page, I haven't seen any vadalism. People are trying to improve the article as far as I can see. It's important that it is fair and neutral and reports both sides of the argument. Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 01:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think he refers to his frustration of not being able to edit the headings concerning other people's comments. He thinks its an "abuse of power". Great, and this from a person calling me a "false anarchist". -- Natalinasmpf 02:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't take me for an idiot, Ms. Knott. I'm not one. Are you then suggesting that you too know enough of the subject-matter to judge what has become of my entry an IMPROVEMENT? Let's be clear here, where the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia and the responsibility of its administrators is in public view and AT STAKE. And once again the "anarchist" got it wrong.
 * I know a reasonable amount of physics yes. I know that the aim of the editors is to improve the article. You may well disagree that the article has in fact been improved after a particluar edit, but that doesn't give you the right to accuse people of vandalising the article. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I assume then you're familiar with Aetherometry and its predecessors. Should I assume that it is you who's orchestrating this rotten concerto? You see, if you compare what I did with what your people did, it is night and day, and I doubt any group of intelligent people would refuse to see the difference.  Right now, I'm fighting against an abortion of my careful work.  An abortion that does not reflect even the facts - such that I'm being prevented of reporting that the Correas drew inspiration from F. Nietzsche and N. Tesla, and wrote about them, and others wrote about what they wrote about them.  See my point.  You are responsible for this clownery, so it seems to me. Ie IMHO since I have no power and no authority than that of facts and the truth to the best of my abilities. I forgot to say, that it is so vandalized that I and anyone intelligent would now, at last, vote for its deletion.


 * Well it looks like it may well get deleted so that would solve the problems we are having with it. This is the very reason that I voted for deletion myself. The theory is too new, too little known. You can't provide the cites we need because they don't exist, but wiythout references you cant backy any of youclaims up so they have to be removed (we have a policy of no original research). I'm sorry, It's horrible to have your work deleted, but I honestly think that Wikipedia isn't the best place for it at the moment. Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 02:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, power at last. PC power (you're sorry...gimme a break). I have provided all the references you need, see my responses in Talk. I can provide more if you so wish, in fact I can put it all in here or wherever you want me to. Just say so and where.
 * What references have you provided? I haven't seen any. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Go to talk.
 * I did, all I see is a list of name of people who you claim support the idea. I don't see a checkable reference. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you're blind, just like you could not find the references to the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment, that I supplied, and then you proceeded to ignore my questions. Ms School Teacher, is it not becoming on you to be more thoughtful and knowledgeable in your edits? Helicoid.

Block
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 12:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

personal attacks
Your block for 3RR violation is only just up, and your first actions are personal attacks on Talk:Aetherometry. If you're not careful, you'll wind up blocked for considerably longer. If you genuinely want to achieve anything here, you should start treating other editors with considerably more civility. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for your vote
I saw that you voted against the adminship of William M Connolly. I reviewed said candidate's actions on the Cold Fusion article and determined them to indeed be very biased and uncivil. I haven't looked at WC's actions on the aetherometry article yet though. The vast support for WC is truly disturbing. I am a candidate for the arbitration council. William M Connolly is precisely the type of biased and uncivil person that I would fight against.

I request that you review my candidate statement and questions at: Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/LawAndOrder, and consider voting for me, though only if you have suffrage for arbitration committee elections (registered before 9/30/2005, and have over 150 edits before 1/9/2006). The votes are vastly against me, so I will not win, but I have very few support votes, so voting for me will at least show that I (who is on your side) am less of a pariah. LawAndOrder 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Wikipedia
I have read your online publication about Wikipedia, describing it, amongst other things, as generally false, and a doomed project. Fair enough. But since it's such a doomed project, why are you still making edits to it, as you did on 10 January 2006? I am curious, given your emphatic condemnation of it. --Knucmo2 11:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I only saw your message today. I am not sure I get the gist of your question, though; I think the nature of my edits was perfectly consistent with my criticisms of Wikipedia.  Helicoid 16:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? I think you've evaded the question.  You've pretty much doomed it to failure in both your pieces with the Correas, and if it is such a doomed project, why are you trying to stop it from sinking as it were.  Given your characterisation of it as 'officiating falsification of knowledge, a system  for disinformation and an assurance of misinformation' (amongst other attacks) I would have thought you'd be happy to let it sink without any intervention on your part, so its hard to see how this is perfect consistency.  Unless, of course, you've revised your position since the publication of these polemics ("Techno-Cult of Ignorance" and "Rise Of the Latrines"), but of course I have no written proof of any such revision and it's quite a staunch stance to let go in any case. --Knucmo2 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're just trying to waste my time. As you undoubtedly know, it is quite possible and consistent to hold and express the view that the political system of a country is doomed, and yet try to work against, or for, specific legislations or actions that directly effect one's life, safety, property, work, etc.   Helicoid 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed I do know that is possible. But the analogy is quite flat.  Your edits show no evidence of trying to:
 * reform Wikipedia
 * reform Wikipedian policies
 * change the editing procedure
 * or reform any of the things you hate about Wikipedia (specifically the cabal you talk about)


 * Of course, that doesn't invalidate your edits on wikipedia (it would invalidate mine) but it does make your analogy false. --Knucmo2 21:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Who's fighting who?


 * AFAIK no one is fighting anyone. I was simply curious about what I perceive to be Helicoid's inconsistency. --Knucmo2 00:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Aetherometry talk pages
Since William M. Connolley is the one who's denying your request, I suggest you take it up on his talk page. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)