Anaphylaxis2014

Hello, Anaphylaxis2014, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello! Anaphylaxis2014, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Welcome!

Hello, Anaphylaxis2014, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

August 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Materialization (paranormal), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of non constructive edits, I think your message belongs to this category. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Materialization (paranormal). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're the one not respecting discussions here by just removing the dubious tag before the situation is solved. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2014 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anaphylaxis2014 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Zad68 12:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Block is for 24 hours. Perma-link to WP:3RRNB report is here. Zad68 12:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anaphylaxis2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Apparently you believe it is acceptable to remove a "dubious" flag from a citation, even if (1) the citation is unrelated to the text it is referred from (2) the text itself is not a fact but a misrepresentation of science. So basically, this means that as long as there are more than 3 friends on Wikipedia that don't want to see a citation challenged, a single editor cannot mark a citation as "dubious" without risking a block. Well, I'm not sure that's what this encyclopedia's spirit was meant to be. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There aren't exceptions to 3RR for reverting tags. For better or worse, Wikipedia resolves issues through consensus, and a consensus of one usually doesn't accomplish much. Please use persuasion to advance your case after the block expires rather than just reverting a tag. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia will always have shit articles like that. It's how consensus works. Don't stress yourself and work on something worthwhile instead. JMP EAX (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. People are more interested in protecting their beliefs than establishing what is true or not, but I had not experience it from inside Wikipedia before. This random article seemed a good place to start, as it is quite controversial. Now I know that bad articles are not just the result of a lack of contributions, but they are also due to lobbying. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Most edit warriors make similar claims. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't blame them. They probably also met idiots like you. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that you feel so empty that, even while I am blocked and cannot edit Wikipedia, you still cannot resist the desire to come here on my own talk page. That's because deep inside you, you know you are nobody. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis2014, go and work on something worthwhile that smart people would want to read, like, say, quantum tunneling or mass-energy equivalence. (Despite their length, both articles still need plenty of work.) Or perhaps even teleportation. JMP EAX (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No thanks. If there is no way to fix false statements in Wikipedia, I will certainly not waste my time on even more important articles, that would only frustrate me further. You don't seem as disagreeable as others, so I wish you a good day. Bye. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The catch is that Wikipedia is based on sources. For a crap topic like Materialization (paranormal), for which I couldn't even find a way to source its scope/definition (in the 60 seconds I was willing to actually search for it specifically Google Books), you'll only find kooky "pro" sources and "meh" debunking sources, none of which are likely to be written by the brightest physicists (and this is an understatement). Given your self-declared narrow interest in such a WP:FRINGE topic, other editors will rightfully assume your not really here to improve Wikipedia's coverage of physics, but only to stir the pot on a pseudoscience topic. Your wikicareer will probably be very short as a result of that. JMP EAX (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)