User talk:Physicman123

Welcome to Wikipedia
user:BassgoonistUser_talk:Bassgoonist/Special:Contributions/Bassgoonist 16:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on :, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Sub-Planck -- the article didn't have any meaningful content. You can't just post a list of section headings, say "Please expand this", and then ask for "months" for the article to be expanded. When you have concrete information to add, go ahead and repost. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have the sources and the content, feel free to repost. If not, stop complaining. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikifascism
A tag has been placed on Wikifascism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. αѕєηιηє t/c 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

sandbox
Why not create the article in your sandbox and then you can edit it and add references at your leisure and when you are happy with it, get a couple of editors to check it over and then move it to article space. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
Hi. Regarding your edit to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, this is not the correct place for such a concern to be expressed. I reviewed the deleted revisions of the Sub-Planck page that you created. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. If this is a valid academic concept, then there are plenty of journals out there where you could publish it. You could start your own website and publish it. But Wikipedia is not an original publisher of new concepts and ideas. You may want to take a look at some of the links in the welcome message given at the top of your talk page - some of the links there discuss a few of our core content policies. Please feel free to ask if I can help you. --B (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to tack on a slightly more blunt comment: you're obviously angry, but you need to calm down. Many of your comments are unacceptably uncivil and constitute personal attacks. We try to maintain a relatively civil atmosphere here - it's a collaborative project, and yelling and name-calling are counterproductive. Take some of that negative energy and use it to read up on Wikipedia's policies (notability and original research would be good starting points) and find some additional reliable third-party sources - that will solve the deletion problem much more effectively than cross-posting a rant about "WIKIFASCISTS". MastCell Talk 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your message on my talk page, you're right. I don't know a thing about it and had a grand total of one physics class in college, nor do I pretend to know much other than that force = mass * acceleration. That aside, most any article that addresses the reader as "we" or contains little other than unsourced speculation is going to be deleted on sight. The RIGHT way to handle the issue is to give a list of academic or other reliable sources (not blogs, not message boards) that discuss the concept. All content on Wikipedia is required to be based on reliable sources that can be verified. The WRONG way to handle it is to start making personal attacks on administrators. --B (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikifascism
If you continue using this phrase, I will block you. You need to read, among other things, our civility guidelines and our requirement that you assume good faith. --Golbez (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

please sign your posts.
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Fredrick day (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sub-Planck
An editor has nominated Sub-Planck, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Jehochman Talk 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You raise a legitimate issue: ownership; but not one related to my greiviences which are CONTENT related. It seems you nor the other editors understand the fine distinctions in particle physics and have tried to delete or modify or redirect sub-Planck out of existance perhaps with good faith but with such levels of violent arrogance and know-it-all conceit that I truely believe you have become wikifasists. It may take several years though for this general understanding to sink in...

Idiots...
I welcome all CONTRIBUTIONS to sub-Planck; I do not welcome uninformed destruction of it or its equasion with Planck Scale by the uninformed...See the discussion on that page that I added.

Sub-planck redirect
The article was redirected as per community discussion here, if you feel this was in error, then I suggest you take it up on the talkpage of the [Planck scale]. Attempts to simply remove the re-direct will be reverted and it is likely that if you persist that a) you will be blocked for disruption and b) the page will be locked to prevent the removal of the redirect. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an error
I believe I added it to the talk page of sub-Planck that equating sub-Planck with Planck is like equating Nuclear Physics with Chemstry...

Please restore sub-Planck immediately; it truely is distinct and more fundamental than Planck Scale and is a DIFFERENT PHYSICS subject... since you and the editors don't believe anything I say a priori please find a physics editor in the future and defer to him...

Sign your posts
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Fredrick day (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Planck
If you wish to contest the result of a deletion discussion, may I suggest the deletion review page? Also, if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, you would be best advised not to call other editors "morons". Black Kite 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ...or "wikifascists". See the civility policy. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikpedia is Dead, Wikifascism,, Editors and Administrators are MORONS
I ask that Wikifascism be reinstated. Wikipedia WAS an encyclopedia.

Now it is a social and cultural anthropological institution with its own entrenched power base; this is natural as virtually all human institutions are.

However, the new power base has become power-mad and content-clueless. They seem to enjoy exercising their power as soon and as bluntly as possible to kill stuff not based on editorial issues, not even to help editorially improve issues... But indeed to kill pages based on their total lack of understanding of the content or the issue.

None of the information I put on the sub-Planck page was speculative. Just as there is crap speculative pseudo-science in every field so is there in theoretical physics; I know the field inside and out; I put up a real page with real information and did built up any hype or speculation; the editors cannot see or distinguish my efforts from that of some bezerk moron they are trying to fight off. Indeed they are the bezerk monors; indeed they have fallen into Wikifascism

However it seems none of the half-dozen editorial assasins of my article contribution, or would-be-content revises is smart enough to see their own bezerk behavior in themselves or others; it is quite disguisting.

Wikifascism is occuring because of REGRESSION TO THE MEAN where any editor with a clueless orientation say towards sports can kill what he doesn't understand to "look good" in front of the other editors or girls...

You have destroyed Wikipedia; I believe I am precocious in my exposition of the above and this isssue will be a heated politically charged debate more and more peaking several years from now.

The editors have become an ignorant rogue mob of morons and are engaging in herd behavior.

I've had it with wikipedia; the current editorially structure CANNOT SUPPORT detailed or sophisticated content beyond say a high school level as after that point the morons who run it close in and try to "fix" the vandalism.

I think all the editors that jumped on sub-Planck should be removed for good; they are not qualified to edit; they have not only overreached but are harming the enclyclopedia; what is more they seem so psychologically hell-bent on justifying themselves that they are immune from any self-understanding or constructive criticism; as I was adding the sub-Plank information; I realized that and felt a form of DEJA VU; for the first time in 30 years; I was playing with children and being teased grade-school style by pathetically ignorant anti-intellectual morons.

I am going to add the above to the Wikifascism discussion group; obviously it will be permanently deleted instantly by the first editor unable to cope with or deal with even self-analysis or constructrive criticism; however, at least I will have proven my point by my additions instant deletion; all the other 25 workers in the physics department here are stunned by what the editors have done to the sub-Planck page; they all watched in horror; they wanted me to get all these editors removed by writing to the "president" of wikipedia. It is not worth it;

Wikipedia is no longer even worth saving not just in my opinion but in theirs also...Nobody in our department is going to bother to contribute to the encyclopedia as they have told me...

You editors have totally failed Wikipedia, Truth, and yourselves; exactly what qualifications in English Communications, Journalism, or Science Education you have are beyond me. But the novelty of this Wikipedia system has shown new-technology cannot override human stupidity and putting the ignorant in charge of information will not work.

You are technological superman with neanderthal intellectual minds and reptilian brains...It is totally disguisting; obviously somebody should forward this to the founder of Wikipedia for his personal analysis but what is the point...

You want to play God or Hitler with Wikipedia not improve it or make it informative; indeed Wikifascism has one.

Hopefully somebody will create a similar contributory enclyclopedia with a different editorial power structure in the future to rectify and realize the original dream of Wikipedia since Wikipedia has failed and will collapse under its own ignorant wikifascisms...

I could list my extensive Physics credentials but what is the point, Truth does not matter on Wikpedia; Power and Righteousness do...

I'd tell all of those who took place in the social spectacle of destroying sub-Planck to go to Hell but they are making wikpedia into a Hell by themselves so my invectives would be redundant...

Physicman123 and his entire Physics Department Gives up on Wikipedia
I am deleting my username and account and will not be using this in the future due to Wikipedia's terminal mortal illnesses.

I wonder if the "Editors" even know what a real Editor does; it seems they don't; they are just immature smug assholes with too much power and too little knowledge and a willingness to totally shoot on sight any criticisms of their childish behavior; it is the "Editors" of Wikipeda who should be confined to the Sandbox or perhaps they should be demoted to the Children's picture book version where they can edit the articles PUPPY and KITTEN since their intellect seems dubiously suited for anything more sophisticated...

MfD nomination of Talk:Wikfascism
Talk:Wikfascism, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Wikfascism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Wikfascism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fredrick day 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you got chased away; hope you come back!
Sorry your Sub-Planck article got deleted; I am trying to restore it. It was a good stub (short article). (I have a Ph.D. in particle physics.) Guess those other editors thought you were a crank. Sorry they bit you. Please do not bite the newcomers

If you do come back, you can improve the article by adding some numbered footnotes.

Dr.enh (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)