User talk:Rvnieuwe


 * }

Dark matter
I have reverted your addition to this article - sorry, the cited journal is not a reliable source for addition of a new theory to wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop and discuss - you just keep adding your theory ignoring comments by other editors. This may result in a routine block of your account. Materialscientist (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are not listening ..

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

3RR violations at Dark matter
Your recent editing history at Dark matter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Dark matter. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Sky Machine  ( ++ ) 15:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I really would like to know why my contribution is repeatedly deleted. What gives you the right to do this? Are articles in refereed Journals not good enough for wikipedia? Or is this just an action of the powerfull dark-matter maffia? 85.164.83.97 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Guidelines on acceptable sources can be found in WP:RS. It's also a good idea to read WP:UNDUE - Minority scientific viewpoints, which this looks like to me, are given space in proportion to the degree to which they are accepted/recognized by the scientific community. As your papers seem to mostly be cited by you, not others, you're going to have a difficult time making a case for their inclusion. This raises a related point, described at WP:COI: editors are discouraged from writing about their own work on Wikipedia, as it's very difficult to be neutral about it.


 * Lastly, be advised that if you disagree with what's on a page, edit-warring over it will get you blocked, especially if you call the users reverting you "vandals". Per this guideline, if you make a change, and someone reverts you, the next step is to _talk_ about it on the article's talk-page. If you're unable to convince others of your views on the talk page, then it's time to let the matter drop, because per WP:CONS, group decisions override individual ones. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If minority scientific viewpoints have no place in Wikipedia, there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia. New views are nearly always the result of an individual or a minority. What is accepted now (dark matter) by the scientific community will soon turn out to be completely wrong. First of all, there is absolutely no proof of the existence of dark matter. On the contrary, more and more results (dark matter particle detectors, the LHC at Cern, recent observations in our own galaxy, and so on) all point to the fact that dark matter does not exist. So, this masterpiece of delusion will soon fall apart and all the content which is now proudly presented on the Wikipedia pages will have to be removed. So, I realize that with Wikipedia's policy, all the contributions ranging from science to politics are so strongly filtered and sencored that it is not anymore worth to consider. So, have a nice time with promoting the most accepted views (but don't forget to delete completely the dark matter section when in a few years time, this has been delegated to the history books and described as a very "dark" period in the history of science). 85.164.83.97 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding your phrase "New views are nearly always the result of an individual or a minority." That might be true or false, but Wikipedia is —by design— an encyclopedia requiring wp:secondary sources. If your new view is good and worth being taken on board here, you'll have to wait a few years until other sources have taken it over and cited it. This is how Wikipedia works. You might call that "fundamentally wrong", but it is in fact "fundamentally Wikipedia". It's the way it goes. Patience is what you really need. - DVdm (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Even an encyclopedia should preferentially be up to date. If one has to wait everytime until the majority of the scientific community agrees, one will always be about 10 years behind the facts. It is like buying an old physics book. In the case of dark matter, things are even worse. Here, the problem is about 75 years old and the scientific community is still on the wrong track. How long do I have to wait? 100 years, 200 years ? The reason that this takes so long is because it has become a self-sustained system. The people who believe in it (dark matter), are the respected scientists, working as referees and editors for the scientific journals, while blocking all articles which do not agree with their personal views. In addition, large budgets are being devoted to the investigation of dark matter and scientists tend to follow this stream of money. That's why I earlier spoke of the "dark matter maffia", because it really works that way. It is then also not surprising that not many alternative theories can be published in Wikipedia's preferred list of Journals. Those people have to use other, less renowed journals, not accepted by Wikipedia. It is also not true that my theory is not cited. One can find several citations (example http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.1972.pdf ) but the citations do not come (for the same reasons) from respected journals. I understand that you act according to Wikipedia's rules and in the believe that this is the best way but in the end you are helping to maintain the present thinking and block new theories.

Rudi Van NieuwenhoveRvnieuwe (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, these are Wikipedia's rules. As an encyclopedia it aims at presenting the present thinking. Research journals aim at stimulating the birth and scrutiny of new theories. - DVdm (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)