User talk:Inorout

Strange revert
Did you really intend this revert? It is unnecessarily reinstating a version that has been challenged. At first glance, you would seem to be doing the edit warring IP's bidding. —Quondum 00:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The other side was also an IP, it seems you were/are doing their bidding and are not shy about it. Inorout (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * arXiv is not peer-reviewed. It has proper papers together with a few crackpots. You'll frequently see references to arXiv here, but then (a) the same thing has also been published as a paper or (b) the scientists are reputable. This specific arXiv paper does not belong in either category, it is crap, it is not even wrong and the author is a well-known crackpot (and probably identical with the IP). The other reference is valid, but pointless in that context. Please remove the section, pseudoscience like this does not belong into articles at all. --mfb (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I urge you to be civil and not use such language in my Talk again. There are 1000s of arxiv references, and it is rather impossible to distinguish their merit. But at any rate, as the IP user has noted, this is just about a comparison of two numbers so you miss the point with objecting to interpretation where there is none. Inorout (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be not civil. English is not my native language, can you explain what exactly you found offensive?
 * There are thousands of arXiv references, most of them are fine, but not all of them. The disputed text is more than a comparison of two numbers. It is claimed that there would be some formula with some deeper meaning, and that G could be calculated based on it. This is not true. The article just combines some symbols and then claims this would give the correct answer. --mfb (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously saying that "crap" isn't offensive in any language? What makes you (or anyone for that matter) the authority on arxiv? Besides, I was able to locate the two numbers in the two respective references. I don't see claims of "formula with deeper meaning" in the paragraph the IP user has added. Inorout (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Crap is a clearly negative description, but it can be fitting. You want to use the reference, therefore you have to show its credibility - what makes you an authority? The added text claims that Omerbashich found a formula, and this implies some non-trivial result. I think we agree it would not make sense to write such a thing if the formula is just 2*G/2 = G, right? Yes the numerical value of G can be found in the arxiv article - so what? It does not even have the correct units, nor a clear relation to numbers that are not made up. --mfb (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, try fitting your language elsewhere but not in my Talk. You want some references removed so the burden of proof is on you. The rest of your claims is original research. Inorout (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With that approach you could make Wikipedia a playground for crackpots. Luckily that is not how Wikipedia works - if you want to add something you have to prove its validity. Anyway, I asked the physics portal for more opinions. --mfb (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that crackpots can have their research published by arxiv? Then we should delete all arxiv references. Until then, I see no harm in using arxiv papers to compare 2 numbers, as your objection seems dogmatic as well as OR. Inorout (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2015 (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. Thank you. --mfb (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You used awfully uncivil language and I-own-WP tone in my Talk above, so I don't think there is anything to discuss with you. Inorout (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts, COI editing
With this edit you again restore a paper by Omerbashich to Dimensionless physical constant that nobody else supports. This paper is published only in the Arxiv which usually doesn't count as a reliable source for Wikipedia. If you continue to restore this paper (before getting consensus) it is likely that I or another administrator will block your account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please state rules I violated, particularly with respect to the arxiv and the fact we have 1000s arxiv references already. Inorout (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Dimensionless physical constant
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2015 (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. Thank you. --mfb (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Omerbashich material
I don't understand your support for the material from this single unpublished paper. What is the point to us continually reverting each other's edits? I'm sure you understand this is edit warring and can get us blocked. How about discussing it on Talk:Gravitational constant/Archive 1 or Talk:Dimensionless physical constant? I'd like to hear your case. Maybe we can find a compromise? -- Chetvorno TALK 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to discuss? There are 2 numbers which were compared and then the comparison abruptly removed without any reason. But sure, we can discuss there. Inorout (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you continue to add Omerbashich material to articles without getting any support from others I'm considering an indefinite block of your account. It seem likely you are most likely a sock of User:Bosnipedian, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian. Bosnipedian was also interested in adding Omerbashich material to our articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support is requested for substantial edits such as removal of good-faith additions and new references. I didn't start it, but now it seems personal for some. Inorout (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Gravity. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Suspected sock puppet of User:Bosnipedian, who was also a promoter of the work of Mensur Omerbashich. See link to a page about Omerbashich. Bosnipedian was previously blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian/Archive. Search for Omerbashich in that SPI. The most recent AN3 report related to this case is WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275. Besides Inorout, a number of IPs have been restoring the work of Omerbashich. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)