User talk:MetricoGeo

Welcome!
Hi MetricoGeo! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Paul August &#9742; 11:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Re Squaring the circle
You are a new editor and are probably unfamiliar with how things are done here. You are engaged in an editorial dispute at the page Squaring the circle. By policy, such disputes are decided through discussion, and editorial consensus, please read WP:CONSENSUS. In particular, when another editor disagrees with your edit, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to keep insisting on your version of the article, and such a violation can result in the loss of your ability to edit, please read WP:EDITWAR. What you need to do is discuss your proposed changes on that article's talk page: Talk:Squaring the circle, where you can try to convince other editor's that your proposed addition to the article is a good one. Regards, Paul August &#9742; 11:31, 21 May 2020 (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. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello MetricoGeo. You are about to be blocked for WP:Edit warring. This wouldn't be a good beginning to your Wikipedia career, so please offer to cease your dispute and to wait for consensus before changing the article again. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the tone of your commentary at Talk:Squaring the circle is not at the level of diplomacy that we expect here. . If this continues you are risking a block for WP:NOTHERE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello I have not added a single word to wikipedia pages for years! So what I am accused for editing? I am accused and will be blocked because I have pointed out the facts that Eppstein and XOR&#39;easter was working hard to delete a wikipage about Haug years ago and bashing his research on wikipedia talk page back then (can be checked), and that I therefore ask if they are biased in their decision to delete someone else than me editing on the Squaring the Circle page when giving a reference to a peer review publication by Haug. I have not been rude, I have asked questions and given references and politely continued the discussion. Please can someone take a look at this. If one get blocked this easy for discussion on a talk page where I definitely have pointed out many weaknesses in arguments by XOR&#39;easter and Eppstein then what is the world of wikipedia coming to? MetricoGeo (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been warned per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. If your behavior does not improve you may not be here much longer. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Not being here to benefit the encyclopedia. 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:. See WP:NOTHERE for the criteria. Your purpose on Wikipedia seems to be the promotion of the work of Espen Gaarder Haug about squaring the circle. Personal attacks, unwillingness to collaborate. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is one of many reverts in which you restore a mention of Espen Gaarder Haug's work to the article. You don't consider this to be promoting that person's work? While you are here, perhaps you can tell us if you have any relationship to Espen Gaarder Haug yourself. And can you explain the meaning of 'practical' in 'a practical way of squaring the circle using relativistic effects', when a pocket calculator can give you the numerical answer you seek without any usage of relativity? EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

When your "honest opinion" is "you have no reason to keep this work out of the article", it's hard to see that as not "promoting" said work. Besides, the WP:BURDEN to make a convincing argument to keep the content is on you, not them to argue it should be kept out. See WP:NOTTHEM too; criticizing others' behaviors is a red herring (specifically argumentum ad hominem) and therefore is not a valid argument for you to be unblocked, nor to restore the content for that matter. Arguing against opinions you disagree with is an integral part of editing Wikipedia, but doing so by attacking others rather than their arguments is emphatically not. Along similar lines, Wikipedia operates by consensus, and part of the editing process here is accepting the consensus of others even when you disagree with it. In this case, everyone else disagrees with addition of this paper based on core Wikipedia policies such as WP:SECONDARY and WP:DUE. Everyone gets a fair chance to present their argument, and in return it is expected that you drop the WP:STICK if it is not going your way.

Note that in practical terms, quantum mechanics prohibits anyone from traveling at a speed of exactly $$c\sqrt{1 - 1/\pi^2}$$ and knowing it, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Since the original problem is a pure math problem stated in Euclidean space, the curved space-time of relativity and physical considerations are tangential to that article. That has been the argument of others. You are free to believe otherwise but the consensus, which you are bound by, need not. Please let me know below if you have any questions, but I unfortunately have to agree with EdJohnston's decision here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly Deng has not even bothered reading the talk page. ""** Yes, "accelerate the train to a speed relative to the embankment of $$c\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{\pi^2}}$$" (roughly 2.84 &times; 108 meters per second) is not exactly "practical". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)" XOR'easter is here searching for arguments to delete the reference to the paper. Had  XOR'easter read the whole paper would he have seen that this is only one of the special solutions and that even a printer head moving at v>0 as stated in the paper will do. So his indication that one need to move so fast as it is not practical even close to possible is totally false." Then one can off course discuss extensions off this in physics, one can include quantum mechanics, one can include gravity even. This is not how scientific publications work, one define inside assumptions (a model) how to work, in this case it was clearly stated out it was inside SR. Any model will off course be incomplete. Well why bother discussing....

I have not been blocked from writing a single word on the wikipedia page in question. I have been blocked for asking critical questions and highlighting weakness and sloppiness in arguments from two editors highly biased. And why I think they are biased is stated on the talk page on the Squaring the Circle page. You guys are agains free speech and open discussions on the talk page!

Deng wrote: "Everyone gets a fair chance to present their argument, " by being blocked on a talk page when one always are polite and stick to arguments pointing out specifics. When pointing out I though the two wikipedia editors Eppstein and XOR'easter where biased I stated why I though they where biased. They did not agree on this and stated their arguments. Look up the discussion.

For example XOR'easter wrote “Instead of showing that you understand the points made by myself and four others,” I then asked "Please point out exactly what point I do not understand since you comes with such non specific claims and accusation that even can lead to my blockage." I was then blocked.

If this is your standards of fair discussions then fine! I must have violated many rules here, by asking XOR'easters to point out the specifics in his accusation.

MetricoGeo (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"Your purpose on Wikipedia seems to be the promotion of the work of Espen Gaarder Haug about squaring the circle." How? Please be specific, since I not have written a single word and not even a comma on the wikipedia page on Squaring the Circle. I have observed that someone else edited the page on Squaring the Circle. I was surprised why the edit soon was deleted by Eppstein. Then it is now clear that Eppstein earlier was part of a small circle including XOR'easter  that bashed the work of Haug. And the new edit on the wikipedia page was about a paper published by Haug so I questioned if the editors where biased based on this. I then got accused for conspiracy theories just for pointing this fact out that could be checked. And as mentioned further up XOR'easter then claimed “Instead of showing that you understand the points made by myself and four others,”. I then asked XOR'easter to point out what i not had understood, and was then blocked.

Conclusion: I was blocked from a few times push the redo botton on an edit (not done by me) that I disagreed on was fair to be removed ???

Naturally not! I was blocked because I pointed out a specific and likely reason for Eppstein and XOR'easter for being strongly biased in their edits and arguments. I also pointed out big flaws in their argumentation. I was then told I did not understood their points. I asked what points I not had understood. And for this I was blocked. This discussion all highlight how pockets of wiki have got monopolized by a few biased frequent wiki users, to promote their own research. For example I see Eppstein very often edit on the page mention the Eppstein algorithm. This is off course not self promotion as it is from a frequent wiki editor. Go figure! Do lots of edits on pages mentioning your own work, and block people and ideas one not like that are posted by people that have nothing to do with the work and therefore are much more objective. Wikipedia is turning into a jungle where people spending lots of time editing on wiki get special privilege to edit on pages they are promoted and self promoting on. Others that not even have written a single comma on a Wikipedia page, get blocked from pointing out likely biased editing on a talk page that is meant for discussion. This is what it all seems to boil down too!

MetricoGeo (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, absolutely wrong, to assert that I have not read the talk page discussion. Please read Five pillars, particularly the second one. You are attempting to argue that we should include the content because it is right. That is not even the case here (due to what I mentioned above about the definition of the circle-squaring problem), and even if it were, it's out of scope of this article. Asserting others are biased is also a red herring; we all have our biases, you included. In fact, neutral point of view does not mean a complete absence of bias; this is a common misconception, and instead, it means we give WP:DUE weight in proportion to coverage in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. That coverage, not any of us, is the ultimate judge of our content, and it has ruled against you. This argument has been raised multiple times, and I like how you are completely ignoring it, which leaves everyone else unconvinced. You were blocked for edit warring, personal attacks (remember, ad hominem arguments do not work at all), and also clear WP:IDHT behavior. I would be very surprised if the reviewing administrator accepts your unblock request because of WP:NOTTHEM.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is your definition of the Squaring the Circle problem? Lets look at other approaches mention on the Squaring of the Circle page "Bending the rules by introducing a supplemental tool, allowing an infinite number of compass-and-straightedge operations or by performing the operations in certain non-Euclidean geometries also makes squaring the circle possible in some sense. For example, the quadratrix of Hippias provides the means to square the circle and also to trisect an arbitrary angle, as does the Archimedean spiral.[12] Although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it sometimes can be in hyperbolic geometry under suitable interpretations of the terms.[13][14] As there are no squares in the hyperbolic plane, their role needs to be taken by regular quadrilaterals, meaning quadrilaterals with all sides congruent and all angles congruent (but these angles are strictly smaller than right angles). " So as pointed out already by the person that did the new edit, the page is not limited to discussion on only the initial ways of looking at the problem.

The pages is referring to and linking to: YouTube, to non peer review books, to mathematic workbook, to all sorts of non mathematical articles, to lectures. Nothing against any of them, but against the very biased editing, where your arguments clearly do not hold. It seems the criteria have been very loose, but that peer reviewed research published by an author before bashed by Eppstein and XOR'easter. Is it a consider a personal attack to point out facts, to look up wikipedia archives and see that out of thousands of wikipedia editors the two that deleted and came up with series of arguments for deletion had bashed Haug's research before on a talk page, and worked as a small circle to delete a 10 + year page about Haug. And that it seems therefor they are heavily biased in their last deletion. Is this a personal attack according to wikipedia rules? Please point out and refer to what sentences and arguments I have used that quality as personal attack? The personal attacks have been against me. For example just claiming I do not understand the points, then being blocked when I politely ask XOR'easter to explain what points I not have understood.

Please list the specific points for the deletion of the edit not done by me on the Squaring of the Circle page!

MetricoGeo (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is a red herring as well. You are still not attacking the core of the argument of everyone else. Honestly, your refusal to even read the links I posted shows Wikipedia is likely not for you,. Existence of content that goes against policy does not justify adding more (appeal to hypocrisy is also fallicious).--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ohh, always come up with an excuse is what you do is called. I have called out that the page is full of non-peer review references, YouTubes, not math journal references etc. All good in my view. But the energy has been going into: Deleting an edit to one of the few peer reviewed published papers on Squaring the Circle in a decent math journal. A edit put in by someone other than me.

Funny one of the the argument from Eppstein was that the quality of the article was not high enough as the journal was not listed in two lists he found. Then when I pointed out this was hardly the case with a series of references or link on the page, including YouTube, non peer reviewed books etc. then this argument felt away. Now you indicate this highly edited page is full of junk or what?? "Existence of content that goes against policy does not justify adding more" Do you mean considerably content(links and references) there is outside the policy, but no one have time to clean it up??? Or do you mean one of the few peer review papers in a math journal throwing new light on the problem is outside the policy?

I have been blocked for pointing out the reason and documented why two editors seems to be biased. One can discuss up and down to what degree they are biased. But fact is I am blocked for pointing out this in an ordered manner on a talk page. I have not written a single comma on the Squaring the Circle page. MetricoGeo (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This will be my last reply, and if your next reply is not constructive discussion related to getting unblocked, expect to lose your ability to edit this page as well. Please do not make me ask for that.
 * I'm not coming up with excuses, unless by "excuses" you mean our core content policies that all of us are bound by. It is comical how you constantly try to come up with reasons you have been blocked for when clearly stated the reasons for the block: "Disruptive editing: Here to promote the work of Espen Gaarder Haug on Squaring the circle. Personal attacks, unwillingness to collaborate". Your baseless accusations of "bias" are definitely personal attacks as they imply that you are not assuming good faith on their part. After all, civility is another one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that are fundamental to how this project works. To edit here, you must embrace the fundamentals of Wikipedia, of which what I linked are very important. If you want any chance of unblocked, you will have to unconditionally agree to those principles. As for the other material, the other editors have more than adequately explained why it can be kept, or in other cases, where it needs improvement (see the last three comments on the talk page). "then this argument felt away" – wrong, please re-read the comments of others
 * Besides, continuing the same behavior that caused you to be blocked is going to make admins unwilling to unblock you, as already pointed out by above. Please please read WP:NOTTHEM; if your next comment is anything besides making a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request, expect to have you talk page access revoked. Having a growth mindset is essential to editing here, and instead you are resorting to increasingly twisted arguments as your position is becoming untenable. I do not want to hear another word about the supposed conduct of others.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I repeat my question that you not have answered yet "Where is your definition of the Squaring the Circle problem? ". And is it relevant to ask this question when you have stated " That is not even the case here (due to what I mentioned above about the definition of the circle-squaring problem), and even if it were, it's out of scope of this article." How is this more out of scope of the page than what is discussed there, and keep in mind this is a active page. For example " Although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it sometimes can be in hyperbolic geometry under suitable interpretations of the terms.[13][14] As there are no squares in the hyperbolic plane, their role needs to be taken by regular quadrilaterals, meaning quadrilaterals with all sides congruent and all angles congruent (but these angles are strictly smaller than right angles). There exist, in the hyperbolic plane, (countably) infinitely many pairs of constructible circles and constructible regular quadrilaterals of equal area, which, however, are constructed simultaneously. There is no method for starting with a regular quadrilateral and constructing the circle of equal area, and there is no method for starting with a circle and constructing a regular quadrilateral of equal area (even when the circle has small enough radius such that a regular quadrilateral of equal area exists)."

Please explain, or will you block me also here for politely question what you mean with your statements?MetricoGeo (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Deng you also wrote "Note that in practical terms, quantum mechanics prohibits anyone from traveling at a speed of exactly $$c\sqrt{1 - 1/\pi^2}$$ and knowing it, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Since the original problem is a pure math problem stated in Euclidean space,"

Did the ancients that originate the problem point out it had to be solved in Euclidean space? Why is hyperbolic space solutions and references to possible solutions here then referred to and discussed on the Squaring the Circle Page? Keep in mind this is not a hardly edited page, this is a page that have been actively edited by many over many years. So this is not just a glip off lack of editing on a non frequent page. So if peer reviewed research discussing the hyperbolic plane solutions are of interest why is then a peer reviewed paper on Minkowski space outside the scope of the page? You have very incorrectly claimed this page and problem is only about Euclidean space.

Is Squaring the Circle in Minkowski Space-Time also not purely mathematical? You have yourself pointed out it is not practical so then it falls in under pure mathematical and geometrical?. As I have pointed out before on the talk page of the Squaring the Circle Page the one sentence put in by others than me that the paper referred to gave a practical solution could naturally be edited. But CXOR'easter then claimed this at all not was an issue causing the deletion. So again I keep asking why it was deleted? Now you will block me for asking you questions about your arguments? Is it considered a personal attack to point out serious flaws in your argumentation? Or can perhaps blocking someone for question and pointing out flaws in your argumentation be seen as a attack on free speech ???? MetricoGeo (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.