User talk:Fixwiki

You should go by a different name

If I may kindly say so, you should choose a different "handle".

Let me put it to you this way: advertising is about stating how you want to be known, not how you are. As a result, the more strongly someone declates their honestly, the less likely it is that you should not trust them. Or, as I often say to my daughter, "If a government is declaring its country to the 'Free People's Democratic Republic ...', then it probably is the most repressive, authoritarian dictatorship around."

"Fixwiki" does not mean that you are going to fix this wiki. Instead it declares that you are here to break it. --EMS | Talk 01:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Fair warning: If you revert Le Sage's theory of gravitation again today, you will be violating the Wikipedia [[WP:#RR|3 revert rule]] policy. Basically, it says that a single user is not allowed to revert a page to a previous version more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. You are up to your three, including the revert done by an anonymous IP that is known to be you (which counts as being a case of sock puppetry, albeit an accidental one). Do that, and you may be blocked. So please review the 3RR policy. --EMS | Talk 05:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no more reverts, and in fact have violated WP:3RR. If you are unsure of the time frame, then you must wait a day. Instead you are trying to rewrite the policy to suit yourself, and that is a no-no. Be advised that I will be trying to have you blocked, and additional reverts today will add impetus and justification to that effort. --EMS | Talk 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a misunderstanding about 3RR. It is not based on a day as in wherever you live or any day that begins at midnight your time or mine. It is a 24 hour period even if that runs over midnight GMT. So first revert, second revert, third revert. And this of course looks a lot like your editing here. Your first revert was at 21:29, 20 June 2006 (as tagged) which means no more than three reverts before 21:29, 21 June 2006. However, based on your comments at Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation#Revert Accounting I get the impression that you plan to continue reverting. In that case you should read Wikipedia:Edit war. If you decide to continue this without discussing what you wish to see done I will block you for edit warring and disruption. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is your fourth reversion in a 24 hour period starting at 21:29, 20 June 2006 (as tagged). Therefore, as warned you have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of 3RR. As to who's version is more correct I could not say. I have not read the page and will not so as to avoid taking sides in the matter. What is important here is not who is right and has the most citations etc. but avoiding an edit war. I will block anybody who breaks the 3RR. To complain about my actions you can, after your 24 hour block, leave a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixwiki" - Kindly be advised that the issue is one of process as much as it is of content. Hopefully after this block comes off you will begin to negotiate in good faith with the other editors. Let's just say that I find it most odd to be involved in an article where the people supporting the non-standard view are polite and articulate, while the primary mainstream advocate is rude, uncompromising, and baltantly POV in his edits. I would like you to be involved to balance off Le Sagian and to a lesser extent the others, but you need to be a part of the process and not a rouge agent on a crusade for your own POV. --EMS | Talk 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and "ass-kissing"

Fixwiki - You wrote on CambridgeBayWeather's talk page:

All of my edits are factual, pertinent, verifiable, NPOV, and correct. In contrast, much of the material inserted by the well-known physics crackpots Minkst, Stowe, Scha[e]fer is false, not relevant, certainly not verifiable, highly POV, and technically incorrect. If you choose to favor them simply because they will kiss your ass, whereas I will will not, then so be it.

At some point you are going to have to learn that the policies of this place are designed to aid in the construction of an encyclopedia and to weed out disruptive elements. The administrators are not going to rule directly on content since that is not their job or Wikipedia's. Perhaps I can give you a sense of persepctive by refering you to the recent antics in Wikipeidia of Androcles, or Der alte Hexenmeister as he is known here. He is making the same claims that his edits are correct and that myself and others are the ones making bogus and POV assertions. Just see user talk:Der alte Hexenmeister and also review Androcles' edit history.

So how can the administrators judge who is best suited to edit here? The answer is in the attitude of most "crackpots". They tend to be rude, uncooperative, unable to document their assertions, POV in their edits, quick to revert text of which they do not approve, and opposed by all of the other editors around them. I will excuse your being opposed by the other editors in this case, but you still qualify for five of the other six red flags which identify a dangerous editor. (Only on verifiability do you seen to have an edge, but that attribute is minimized by your regular refusal to cite your sources for the rest of us.) Especially disturbing is your persistent refusal to abide by WP:CIVIL. In my experience, incivility is the most accurate indication of a crackpot editor, and you are one of the most uncivil editors as I have ever encountered. (For example, your use of the term "well known physics crackpots" above violated WP:CIVIL. In fact, your use of that wording probably made CambridgeBayWeather consider your behavior to be the real issue instead of that of the people you named as such.)

Kindly realize that my "parallax gravity" is a general relativity variant, and that I have no incentive to support Le Sage gravitation because of that. I am nominally on your side, and do wish to help you. However, if you continue to act uncooperative and uncivil, you will continue to be blocked. So choose: Either continue to be obnoxious and therefore ineffective, or calm down and start figuring out how to create edits that other editors are willing to support. --EMS | Talk 22:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the admin's notice board

Your complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lesage_Gravity_and_CambridgeBayWeather_Intervention got responsed to. Note that you did not get any sympathy or support.

BTW - I have figured out how to get you banned against for vilating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. See Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard. I am willing to start using those templates and eventually list you on that noticeboard if you keep up the rudeness. Perhaps the best advice comes from the first for the "npa" templates:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Note that this is copied from the template, and therefore may not count as an official warning against you (and will not count as such by myself). However, calling people "crackpot" and treating them as idiots unworthy to edit in Wikipedia does violate this policy. Please realize that there is nothing that you have said with put-downs that could not only have been said without them, but could also have been said more effectively without them. In the meantime, if you see a third warning with a different wording here, then realize that it means that I am reporting you at WP:PAIN (which is a shortcut to that notice board). --EMS | Talk 02:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fixwiki

Could you do me a favour and let me know via my talk page what the article(s) you're having trouble with are? As an admin who knows a bit about physics, I would like to try and help you all resolve these issues. Could I ask that you stop reverting 3 times a day for now, while I look into things? Regards, Proto///type 07:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixwiki - Proto here has asked me to back off, and so I will. I hope that you will be able to work with him. --EMS | Talk 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

The policy states:

"The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."

As you can see it's not a calendar day but any given 24 hour period. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixwiki - The issue here is behavior, not content. I wish that you could see that. Look above: You were warned, and warned, and warned again before you got blocked. You cannot say that you were unaware that it was not coming, that it was not fair, or that you were acting in accord with Wikipedia policy. All of your arguments to that effect focus on the content of Le Sage's theory of gravitation, and ignore the real issue, which (once again) is your behavior. --EMS | Talk 15:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]