User talk:InvestigateThis

Sockpuppet investigation
&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I only have one account, I have not edited on wikipedia pages, but commented on talk pages on doubtful edits by XOR'aster. I guess this is initiated to claim I am a Sockpuppet to be able to delete comments on XOR'asters defamatory comments on for example Prof. Gift. XOR'aster has pointed his research and the journal he has published in, called it garbage. This likely even to delete references to another researcher he had issues with in the past. Some of the claims by XOR'aster can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planck_units

please also see in relation to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squaring_the_circle

also in relation to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/QuantitativeGeometry/Archive

InvestigateThis (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure now is XOR'aster and perhaps some editor friends working hard to close any visible critics towards the defamatory behavior! What exactly wrong have we done by simply pointing out XOR'asters personal attack on researchers, well enough that much of our critics will be deleted I guess? InvestigateThis (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We expect our user to be deleted and our questioning XOR'asters editorial behavior to be unfairly removed, here is what the case is about:

"

Was that really the reason for the delete
XOR'easter delete likely for other reasons than he states! "curprev 15:44, 6 February 2021‎ XOR'easter talk contribs‎ 73,547 bytes −2,535‎  →‎List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction" undothank

So the reason "given" is a totally different article in a journal. Many even top journals have some junk papers, so we should delete references to papers in these journals because we can point out other junk papers in that journal?. And who say a peer reviewed published paper is junk or not, other peer reviewed researchers proving so or wiki editors? And we are not even talking about the paper he deleted reference to, because he did not want to indicate the real reason he deleted it. Interesting to see how CXOR'easter keeps deleting anything referring to the researcher he and David Eppstein wants to delete anything about on wikipedia, except if anyone write something negative on that researcher, that they will let stand and defend. Please check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squaring_the_circle, is XOR'easter involved here? why was this delete again related to reference to this specific researcher by exactly XOR'Easter ? coincident, ohh yes for sure, LOL!! (XOR'easter and David Eppstein works hand in hand to delete and deplatforming anyone that write positive or refer to researchers they dont like. Off course now we will hear it was a pure coincident, and that I am putting out conspiracy... LOL

"List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, " LOL yes we are sure that is why it was deleted. Because elementary things and simplification of science is not what highly complex wiki is about...LOL XOR'easter had for sure even forgotten the name on this researcher from last time he aggressively attacked him, so this delete was because he discovered another paper in the same journal (that not even is referred to on this or other pages on wiki) that he personally thought was nonsense, and why he now had to delete a link/info to a paper that by coincident was by the researcher he wants to delete anything positive about!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestigateThis (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My edit summary was accurate. Physics Essays is a garbage journal that we should not cite (see WP:CITEWATCH). I've been cleaning up citations to it in many articles. Your comments here and at Talk:Squaring the circle constitute personal attacks against myself and, which violate Wikipedia policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

XOR'aster are specifically mention the following article "particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" in his reason for deleting reference to another article someone has put on the Planck unit page. I googled the paper you specifically mention "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" and found it is a peer reviewed paper by Stephan J.G. Gift, Professor of Electrical Engineering, The University of the West Indies. Your claim that his paper and the journal is garbage is highly defamatory. I see Professor Gift has many papers in well respected journals, and also Physics essays is well respected in many circles. Either you should state your critics of why this paper is "tripe", preferably you should do so yourself in a peer reviewed paper you can get published, or you have to give reference to other papers doing so. Your editing had very doubvious standard, it is quite obvious you are after another researcher. Even if you have been co-author on a few physics papers, this do not make you an expert in the field. It is highly non-respectable the way you operate. And it is quite clear why you mention a paper not even that has been mentioned on the wikipedia page for Planck units, you wanted clearly to delete references to another researcher there. I have not done personal attack on any, I am criticizing how you and other editors are operating, and specifically mention how you in my view are doing personal attack on person that likely not even are aware of you are putting out very negative things about them on wikipedia, and therefore not even can respond. You are specifically mention very negative stuff about a paper written by a specific professor. Is this not a topic even in other much more well known journals also? How can it come that you think you can do what you do? You now try to play the game that it is me breaking the rules off wikipedia and doing personal attack, on editors that likely even will have my questions of their personal attacks tried removed. I do not think wikipedia benefit from you throwing out your personal opinion on researchers you dont like personally. Prof Gift should be informed I think about your claims! So XOR'aster think it is fully okay to put out defamatory claims on papers of Professor Gift and others. And as defense for me making wikipedia readers aware of this he say I am breaking the wikipedia code and personally attack them. I am stating what you delete, and also show very good indications you are after specific people etc.  InvestigateThis (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Will XOR'aster also update the wikipedia profile on Physics Essays, and tell what he claim above "Physics Essays is a garbage journal" or will he get the page deleted? Should the editor of that journal be informed about XOR'asters claims? Is it fair to throw out such claims without more backing? Some will possibly consider your behavior highly defamatory, both towards specific persons such as Prof Gift, and to journals and their publishers and editors, all of them should be informed, and I am not sure the founding fathers of wikipedia would prefer editors to behave like this? InvestigateThis (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)"InvestigateThis (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:QuantitativeGeometry&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/QuantitativeGeometry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 41188
 is declined.

I have reviewed your request using a variety of investigative techniques. I'm afraid I find no reason to disagree with the findings at . Please see the Guide to Appealing Blocks . This request is declined. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 00:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)