User talk:Elerner: Difference between revisions

3rr

Eric, please be aware of the three-revert rule. My edit to the plasma cosmology was an attempt at compromise, which Iantresman, anyways, seemed to accept. Please do not unthinkingly revert anything, or do so without discussion on the talk page. Despite your expertise on the subject, such behavior will not win you any friends on Wikipedia. Also, please learn to use edit summaries, available at the bottom of the edit page. You can use them to explain why you made a particular change. –Joke137 00:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology dispute

In response to your questions:

1. In early stages of a dispute, it may seem that people with too much free time have the upper hand when editing articles. But in the long run, what prevails is the wisdom of crowds. You just need to be patient and persistent. Ask your colleagues to join in as well and help out with the cosmology articles.
2. If an article is biased, and there are contradictions, state them clearly in the talk page. Make a list of the problems you see. Then place the article in Request for comments so that other interested editors can take a look and hopefully assist.
3. As for the three revert rule, you cannot revert more than 3 times in a 24hr period. If you do, you may be blocked. In my experience, reverting hardly works (even though I must admit that I indulge in it sometimes), as edit-warring never accomplishes much, besides getting upset and upsetting others. Best is to try to offer proposals, discuss them, provide sources and references and reach some kind of agreement that you and others can live with.

So, do not despair and have patience. Ask other cosmologists to join in and help out. And most important, know that sooner or later, the wisdom of the community will prevail over the wisdom of a single editor. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I have added a request for comment on your editing behavior, available at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elerner. I believe that you may add your response at the bottom of the page. For more information about user-conduct RfC's, please see requests for comment and user conduct. –Joke137 00:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Joshuaschroeder 18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello

good research! I hope you saw my comment about NPOV in a discusion related to your conduct. It might be handy. If you need anything just leave a message on my user page. --CyclePat 20:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

While editing Eric Lerner I discovered apparent unreverted vandalism by 24.208.178.93 on November 27, so I'll let you determine if it's true or not. Art LaPella 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Redshift

You're being used as a supporter of User:Iantresman on the Talk:redshift page. Please respond. --ScienceApologist 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WAS 4.250

Welcome to wikipedia. Please feel free to make NPOV sourced additions or changes. We both know you know more physics than 99% of wikipedians. I believe (and I'm sure you'll disagree) that you know less physics than 99% of Ph.D physicists. Degrees aren't everything. But on wikipedia there is no original research and sourcing is what counts. It's ok for you to add to wikipedia "Eric Lerner claims some claim [some source] while {some other guy} claims some other claim [some other source]." See how that works? But claims that are, ummm nonmainsteam shall we say, don't get EQUAL "billing" in terms space in any article not specifically about them. Fill feel to create articles about your theories using proper sources, but SOURCED criticism about those theories goes in the articles also.

Also, most us us here have no problem with you earning a living writing books, making speaches, and so forth. But wikipedia is not to be used as anyone's billboard or free advertizing medium. I'm sure your intent is to write what you believe to be true. But we judge by behavior, not intent, not even real world identity. There is absolutely nothing to stopt you from editing wikipedia with a dozen aliases. We don't care. When all dozen act in the same objectionable way, THEN we care. It's all about behavior, not who you are in real life. WAS 4.250 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you distribute gratuitous insults, you should check your facts. If I was not a physicist, as you seem to believe, it would be difficult to explain why NASA gave me $300,000 for fusion propulsion research and what I am doing down here at the European Southern Observatory as a visiting astronomer, or for that matter how I got all my papers published.

What people like you don't realize is that cosmology is science, not religion. It's observations that count. Attempts to ignore things that invalidate a theory like the Big Bang, or to censor them as Joshua Schroeder and others try to do, has nothing to do with science.--Eric LernerElerner 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Eric, it doesn't make any difference that you've logged into your account. It's still obvious that you reverted the page four times in about an hour, which is against the 3RR policy. Please discusse ScienceApologist's edits on the Talk page. –Joke 03:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The block expires 24 hours from this notice. howcheng {chat} 07:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Eric, you are once again in danger of violating the three revert rule. –Joke 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

So, I have dutifully taken the mediation of plasma cosmology. Before we start, I would like to know what form of mediation you would like to take? You guys basically have three options: the first (and most popular) is to just do it on the wiki, probably at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology. The second is to do it by email (I wouldn't recommend it as there are quite a few users listed). And the third is to do it be IRC. Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Plasma cosmology where you would like to do it. Thanks. Sasquatch t|c 05:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that we have all agreed to do it on the Wiki, I have intiated the next step which is an intial statement to see where we all stand. Just state your point of view on the issues at hand without making references to others or the conduct of them. Just to let you know, I have been reading over the talk page and will address the concern of needing a person who understands plasma comology. I feel after reading it, I have a pretty good grasp of it as I am pretty good in science. However, the issues seem to extend beyond just simple right and wrong on the issue but rather into what should be included and where we should draw the line. I hope, as mediator, to rectify these differences and to reach a consensus. As a last note, I suggest you put the mediation page on your watchlist as I will not always give messages like this. Thanks! Sasquatch t|c 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting without comment is bad form

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.--ScienceApologist 18:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WIki!

It appears as though you've been here for some months, and have no doubt already discovered why I decided long ago to give up on the Plasma cosmology article. Bravo to you though, I know that your great resolve for the truth will help you endure here. Ionized

Eric Lerner

I'm sure its been said before, but short of minor factual changes, its really bad form for you to edit your own article. Please do not continue the edit war by blanketly reverting the content changes. If you have comments on the changes, please use the discussion on the talk page to form a consensus - make sure you back up your proposed changes with policy. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 00:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)