Musashi miyamoto

Hello, Musashi miyamoto, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages. That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 21:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Please be aware of WP:AN3

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Musashi miyamoto Reported by User:Weaponbb7 (Result:) here Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Musashi miyamoto. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice

A couple of points. First, Bold, Revert, Discuss. The onus is now on you to discuss your proposed changes on the article's Talk page and achieve consensus there.

Second, don't accuse administrators of vandalism. It has a tendency to come right back at you, especially when the people you're fighting with generally average more edits per hour than you have in your entire eleven years as a registered account. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism, if it is done by admin that is even worse. If you edit so much, you are destined to make some errors. Besides good admin should have a 'thick skin' and be just and not vengenful regardless of users behaviour and accusations (so saying 'don't accuse administrators of vandalism', even though there was no evidence that you are admin, and threatening me not to say the truth, because you have special privileges, is an abuse of your power and simply unfair). BTW, how can I know who is admin? You do not have any info on your page about that. You reversed my edit without any explanation why you did that - that is vandalism. The person who did that first should justify why he did it, and he did not do it. He falsely claimed that it has not been reported anywhere else, and I proved him to be wrong. He did not object that, so there was no reason for you to reverse my edition. This hypothesis has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal with good IF, and published also by popular press, so I do not see any reason whatsoever why this hypothesis should be deleted and all others left. There is no difference between the position of this hypothesis and all others. All of them have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and subsequently debated in popular press. This is not up to Wikipedia users to decide which one is correct one and which one is not. You have no qualification for that, unless you published a rebuttal in a scientific peer-reviewed paper - but even then the hypothesis should not be deleted, but merely an information about rebuttal paper added. However no such rebuttal paper has been published in this case.

Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you..

In particular, there is not yet WP:CONSENSUS for these additions to the article: [1]. Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) xx:xx, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You will not achieve anything by lying. I (and several other editors) merely have been reverting your obvious vandalism. In particular, there has been already reached the consensus twice regarding [2], yet you ignore it and are pushing your own POV by removing indiscriminately multiple times the whole sections of the article against the consensus previously reached - this is seriously disruptive editing, it is vandalism. As Sparkyscience correctly told you: "It should be self evident looking at the talk page that not everybody agrees with your POV, but nonetheless your view has already been taken into consideration with the correct moderation, by clearly stating that many scientists believe it to be impossible and classify it as pseudoscience. Attributed quotes stating that the majority of the scientific community believe such devices as impossible belong in the body not the lede. The lede should be objective and not portray opinions as facts. The other editors are under no obligation to accept your demands for a false compromise that you offer on your own terms to remove the NPOV tag. Continuing to hold the page hostage until you "win" just betrays the fact you are wedded to own ideas. Accusing the other editors of being disruptive while deleting whole sections indiscriminately is clearly hypocritical and unhelpful. You also consistently seem uninterested in addressing or giving specific criticism to the proposed underlying scientific theory by which the device works: Let me ask again - where does the energy of the Casimir effect come from? and is it possible in principle to transfer momentum from the electromagnetic field to matter and under what constraints?--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)"
Also confirmed by Insertcleverphrasehere: "Know when to give up, the majority won't always agree with you, even if you argue ad nauseam. You clearly have a POV to push here, try to exercise some self control. I realise that you don't like that the mainstream media keeps being overly positive about these tests, but thats what the sources are, for better or worse.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"
Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

For your information

Just a quick note, I've noticed that you have been saying that what Rolf is doing is 'vandalism'. Technically, according to wikipedia policy, it is not vandalism (though it is WP:tendentious editing and WP:edit warring). You probably should stop saying that he is doing vandalism, and consider striking out where you have used this wording previously (you can do this easily by using the strikethrough template).

Specifically: "content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism--from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In order for a disruptive editing to be considered non-vandalism, there must be seen any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to core content policies of neutral point of view is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia and therefore constitutes to be vandalism. I suppose that we all assumed good-faith editions by him at the beginning, but clearly repetitive removal without a good reason of the whole sections without waiting to reach a new consensus and ignoring the previous consensus, and ignoring most of the valid points, which successfully rebut his opinions, show that his intentions are not to improve Wikipedia. Perhaps he simply enjoys quarrels. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess from my point of view I see Rolf as being a POV editor editing in good faith, at least in his own way. He really thinks that the section in dispute doesn't merit inclusion, which per WP policy would make what he is doing technically non-vandalism IMHO. I've previously worked well with him on the article, and in this case it seems to me perhaps that he just doesn't want to be wrong, or something. His being so adamant on the point is very odd to me, as there is other material in the article that is at least as controversial, and arguably worse sourced than the section that he has repeatedly tried to blank. Given what I know given my past dealings with Tenofalltrades, he would love any excuse to gut material from a fringe article, and often tries to twist the RS and weight rules to exclude even well sourced material from fringe articles he doesn't like.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been avoiding calling his disruptive edits vandalism on the RS Noticeboard as well as in the latest entries on the article talk page. However, the level of weirdness in his behaviour regarding this issue is so suspiciously high, that I still have doubts that these were all good-faith edits (and if they are not good-faith edits then they are vandalims according to WP policies). Perhaps they were good-faith in the beginning, but it seems that he knows now that he is not right, but despite that he is pushing his POV just for the sake of "I don't want to be wrong", and that can be considered non good-faith behaviour. Yes, of course, that other material in the article is at least as controversial, and even worse sourced than the section that he has repeatedly tried to blank, that is why I pointed out in the discussion that if they removed this section they would have to remove also all other sections in the Hypotheses section - but that would be pointless and counterproductive. As long as we do not know how the electromagnetic drive works, it is best to share and consider all options, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. To respect the scientific principles is the best way to ensure progress.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and incivility

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit other user's comments like you did here. Edit only your own (unless someone has responded to it already), not others, not even to fix spelling mistakes (I'm saying this because what you did appeared intentional, and if it wasn't then sorry). JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or to Rolf H Nelson? I did not edit any other users comments. Upon looking at the link you provided I assume that you are talking about "two" and "twbo". I did not make that edit, and I have not idea why it is there. I was unaware of it until you posted your message.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking to you. Your username is attached to the edit, so you did, in fact, make that change. If it was an accident, then I'm sorry for saying it was done intentionally. JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. It was confusing, because it appeared like if you were talking to him (because replying to his message). You only assume that I did that change, I assume that it is also probable that Wiki server made that error or that my web browser made that error or whatever. What I am saying is that although it is also possible that somehow unintentionally und unknowingly I did that edit, for example when switching between separate browser windows, that is not the only possible explanation why this particular change appeared there in my edit. All I know is that I have not been aware of that change, and even if it is attached to my proper edit that I did, there can be many reasons for that, and not only an unintentional edit by me. Just trying to be precise and thorough. So who should correct that error now?Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I've already corrected the error before leaving the initial message. There's nothing else to do now. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thank you.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as an issue; the insertion of the misspelling seems very clearly unintentional to me. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Daily mail

I am actually serious about the Daily Mail. I didn't understand when I first came to wikipedia, but have a read through that RfC that is open (even just the last few comments above yours). The Daily Mail outright fabricates content all the time in order to get a 'scoop'. IMO it is probably likely that they really did get the interview you are talking about, but then again, other outlets didn't get an interview, maybe the DM couldn't either and made the whole thing up. The problem is that 'probably' is not good enough when it comes to sourcing content for wikipedia, and the DM has a track record for making shit up, which makes it impossible to rely on their editorial oversight. You know me, I am not trying to attack the section you have worked hard on. If there is any material in that paragraph that is attributable only to the DM, I would very much appreciate if you could remove it. If, on the other hand, the other sources cover the material adequately as it stands, then we need not rely on the DM and are better off without it, as it negatively impacts the credibility of the section and article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is easily verifiable in this case, just ask the authors of the paper, if DM interviewed them and if they confirm that the quotes in DM are true. Their e-mail addresses are in the paper. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As another user pointed out just as I was making my edit, we can't do that, as it is original research, and defeats the purpose of having sources in the first place. The DM can't be considered reliable just because it is 'big' as you pointed out; big unreliable sources are just as inappropriate as small unreliable sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that the Daily Mail RfC has closed, with the result that citations to the Daily Mail are generally prohibited from use as sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

General advice

Please try to keep an open mind, I am not saying there are not some editors who are ideologues that will edit with a singular POV regardless of the facts (there certainly are). However, it is important to listen to editors that have been around on wikipedia for a lot longer than yourself, and consider their words. I came to wikipedia with a similarly belligerent attitude as the one you have been displaying, and ended up with a year topic ban on cold fusion. I am not saying that you'll get topic banned necessarily, but you've already had one trip to ANI (which is a scary place to end up). You were lucky, on your trip to ANI you had a couple of experienced editors backing you up, and the Emdrive article is not under discretionary sanctions like cold fusion is, but if you keep acting with such a battleground attitude, you'll end up back there again, and a second trip to ANI is much worse than a first trip (the place can quickly become a kangaroo court). I'm not trying to warn you, or scare you, or any of that, but just trying to give some advice, one editor to another. Fringe articles are tough to edit in, as there are always polarized views. I like to jokingly say that I heavily apply Hanlon's razor to my dealings with other editors, though it is really only another way of saying to assume good faith. It is an important rule to learn, and if you want to be successful on wikipedia I would recommend that you carefully study that policy. Another suggestion if you want to become a better editor, move around the wiki a bit, read the policy pages; helping out at Requested Moves, Articles for Creation or at Articles for Deletion are great ways to get familiar with wikipedia policy quickly. I can see you being a very good editor, and I wish you the best, and would hate to see you get stepped on by the boot of WP bureaucracy.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Musashi miyamoto. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't

Please don't add links to popular science youtube links as you did here and here. This amounts to spam. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well it is a shame, because it is much easier to understand those experiments from the videos than from wikipedia description, so it is unreasonable not to add those links. The readers of wikipedia are in disadvantage not being able to see those videos. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be a shame (and against Wikipedia policies) to expose the readers of Wikipedia to nonsense, which also comprises about 70% of these video's. - DVdm (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You should not analyse the whole video, but just a section showing the experiments. They say in the video that they consulted the author of the paper (dr Kim), so it represents correctly the experiment carried out by Kim and Scully et al. Therefore it is a shame that users would not be able to see this. It is really hard to understand the experiment without seeing this video. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The video is not a reliable source, so it cannot be include here: see wp:RS. - DVdm (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If it was consulted with Dr Kim then it is a reliable source.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Read wp:RS. And then, read it again. - DVdm (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see any rule there which would prevent from adding this video. This video is a secondary source, which in fact should be added for the article to be in wikipedia. Secondary sources are usually popular press articles or videos.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If you "do not see any rule there which would prevent from adding this video", then read wp:RS again. DVdm (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You read it, because you seem to be misinterpreting it.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at List of unsolved problems in physics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - DVdm (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• And why haven't you send such a warning to Arianewiki1, when he started this reverting, and is continuing to do this without any real reasonable reason whatoever, and does not start a thread on talk page, even though I requested that he do so? Just be fair, honest and objective, if you want to see reasonable behaviour of other users. BTW, this is a lie: "Unsourced content." There is plenty of sources in the relevant articles, there is no need to repeat them here, because there are already internal links going to those articles. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read wp:BRD. You made a bold edit, which was reverted. At that point you should have started a discussion, as opposed to re-reverting. The discussion should take place at Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics. - DVdm (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your demands are unreasonable. I have nothing to say, because all is fine from my point of view, so how can I start a discussion? The one who has objections should start a new thread and list and explain in details his objections. I do not see any reason to revert these changes, so I have no grounds to start a new thread.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There are not my demands. These are Wikipedia's demands. Policy. If you find Wikipedia policy unreasonable, then you are free to go elsewhere. Or to try to change the policies at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The users who reverted my edits violated Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary rule. So why do you care about one policy and not the other? My objections are reasonable, and you know it, because you have not managed to prove that they are not. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The burden is yours — see wp:BURDEN. Policy. - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits. In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits. So clearly my edits do not qualify for reversion. See Unacceptable reversions. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently indeed, "the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement". So the reverter (you) should have gone to the talk page and discussed. You did not do that, and you immediately reverted again. Bad idea. - DVdm (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Remebmer what I said about being honest, fair and objective. You're not being one. First of all there is no policy that I have to start the discussion on the talk page. The rules say: "Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." So both Arianewiki1 and you instead of reverting against the rules (you clearly violated the "Revert only when necessary", because your reverts are unacceptable as per the rules) should have begun discussion on talk page. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Read wp:BRD. And then, read it again. - DVdm (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I read it therefore I know that you violated the wikipedia rules, as stated above.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Enough. These ridiculous demands made above are so outrageously out-of-step with editing rule or methods used here, that I have to question you lack of maturity - especially after read this "And why haven't you send such a warning to Arianewiki1, when he started this reverting, and is continuing to do this without any real reasonable reason whatoever, and does not start a thread on talk page, even though I requested that he do so?"

This is near WP:PA and is also avoiding WP:GF, especially as I DID explain why. Your own submitted edits did not give an reason at all and did not even give relevant cites to validate it. The first revert I said "Absolutely no explanation for these additions."[3] The second edit I reminded you " Use talkpage."[4] You just ignored that.

I already discussed all that elsewhere (article talk page, and below), so I won't be wasting my time on discussing the same issues again in two or more places. Please hold discussion on the same issues in one place only. Many thanks. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You seemingly have had issues with this thing before, especially on Galaxy rotation curve [5] Really. Saying "One proposal published in Astrophysics and Space Science assumes that inertia is due to the effect of horizons on Unruh radiation and predicts galaxy rotation simply and exactly without dark matter or adjustment." Yet now in [6] you claim: "* Inertia: What is the source and nature of inertia? Various efforts by notable physicists such as Ernst Mach (see Mach's principle), Albert Einstein, Dennis William Sciama, and Bernard Haisch have been put towards the study and theorizing of inertia, but still the mechanism causing its formation is unknown. The most recent theory of inertia known as quantised inertia by Mike McCulloch [7] is pending experimental confirmation." This is utterly silly, and was rightly reverted in early 2017. (This discussion on "Quantised Inertia" here confirms this.[8] ) So "...pending experimental confirmation." is smokescreen, and worst its addition here is more like WP:OR.

The experiment based and this and other papers is carried out by Prof. Perez-Diaz in Spain and Sweden, so it was a valid observation that it is pending experimental confirmation. You are very light on WP:AGF assuming it to be some kind of smokescreen whatever that means. I don't see where you see the problem with those two edits. Quantised inertia is one of several hypotheses explaining galaxy rotation problem, it also is one of hypotheses explaining the cause of inertia. These are hypotheses not theories, so although they try to explain these phenomena we do not know if these hypotheses are true. What's so difficult to understand about that? Can we hold this discussion in one place only (article talk page). Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Here some odd-ball theoretical theory, means (according to you) that: " the source and nature of inertia" has now become some unsolved problems in physics. Stating "...but still the mechanism causing its formation is unknown" is obviously false.

Please rephrase it.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lastly [Ernst Mach]] , Albert Einstein, Dennis William Sciama, work on this is so long ago, much of their speculation has been surpassed. Especially noted in the article on Bernard Haisch it says: " In 2006 Haisch published a popular book in which he attempted to reconcile modern scientific belief with traditional religious belief." This exposes a possible underlying motive here? Eh?

You are violating WP:AGF with your religious obsession. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion these revert were all valid. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, you have not provided with any evidence to support your arguments. Can we continue this discussion on the article talk page?Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Conclusion

These responses are just so funny, I don't know where to begin. OK. Let's talk about actual 'evidence' here. Inertia nor 'Unsolved problems in physics' is not the issue here. It is using both buck passing and plausible deniability as justification. Other than the continuous emotive nonsense (like above) , the reverts did follow procedure. (even with consensus too!)

• Using deliberate tactics like 'accuse the accuser', 'always deflect or deny facts', 'cherry-picking sources' or 'it's everyone's fault by mine', make you as transparent as glass (or the aether*.) I.e.

• Saying "...your religious obsession" or "violating WP:AGF" (which is not true.)

• "...you have not provided with any evidence to support your arguments." (Even if true, neither have you.)

• Using completely unrelated names to the subject like Bernard Haisch and Prof. Perez-Diaz ;

• Still responding "Not at all..." when repeatably told and confirmed: "Conclusion these revert(s) were all valid."

As for: "The experiment based and this and other papers is carried out by Prof. Perez-Diaz in Spain and Sweden, so it was a valid observation that it is pending experimental confirmation." Yeah, right. Plainly BS. It is completely unrelated. Why didn't you cite it then? (Oh. I Forgot. I should have discussed it on the talkpage using precognition.)

• Evidence suggests, from your own words likely have an agenda and are seemingly wishing to avoid scrutiny. It is obvious you've been influenced somewhere and want to espouse McCullough ideas. Just in reading his blog 'Physics from the edge' [9] explains much about your past edits. Clearly 'Fringe science' (Importantly see WP:Fringe theories and WP:NFRINGE) is not allowable when editing.' This is regardless, clearly WP:OR or WP:COI, and is not acceptable without disclosure.

• Frankly you are also avoiding the precepts explained WP:Honest.

• As for: "Can we hold this discussion in one place only (article talk page)." From your own response above, plainly no.

F=ma is immutable in standard physics and relativity, hence, is 'solved'. Some possible quantum mechanical effect is speculative, which the scientific community seemingly rejects as plausible or very likely (evidence by few published related citations.) It cannot be an 'unsolved problem in physics' because there are simpler alternatives and observations supporting the current. All unsolved problems in physics require no alternative nor observation. Hence, have NO explanation. Inertia, gravity, Double-slit experiment, Wave–particle duality, all do.

Lastly, please stop writing 'stuff' into my responses, and instead write a singular reply AFTER it. As it is, it is almost unreadable. If you want to quote me, then use text in quotes.

I will no longer be further responding to your unsubstantiated contentions made here. If you make edits that do not cite sources that are notable and relevant, they will be legitimately reverted.

¤ Using your own logic above, are Aether theories also now some "Unsolved problems in physics?" Clearly not. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about "writing 'stuff' into my responses". I only now have read the above (after already responding there), so I'll try to quote you and then use your text in quotes the next time. I do not want to carry out the same discussion in two places, so I'll add here only answers to relevant issues, which were not there. Bernard Haisch is mentioned in the wikipedia article on Inertia, if you think he is incorrectly put there and you can prove it, then you may delete him. The info about Prof. Perez-Diaz experiments was in a twitter message I once saw. I did not quote it, because it is largelly irrelevant to the issue of proving that inertia in unsolved problem in physiscs; if I quoted that message, it would only prove that he is doing these experiments to confirm quantised inertia hypothesis, not much more. I have already asked you there these questions: Why do physical objects show the resistance to any change in its state of motion? What is the source of that resistance? Think about them really hard, then hopefully you would finally understand that physicists do not have answers to these questions. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2018 (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. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 20 January 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

There was no 3RR, because consensus has been reached, Paradoctor agreed with that consensus, and nobody else, including DVDm, objected then to that consensus, therefore this was a new edit (and not a 3rd reverse), which included the sources as agreed in the consensus; if DVDm was still unhappy about the edit then he should have discussed that on the talk page without reverting my new edit, because he grossly violated WP:ROWN rules by reverting it. Also I am unable to continue discussion at the talk page or at the administrators' board when blocked, while DVDm is dishonest there (for example he says that allegedly "The sources do not say that these are unexplained problems in physics", while already in the first source added, in the first sentence of that source it is written: "The property of inertia has never been fully explained."). I kindly request that you unblock me, as there was no reason for blocking, and reprimend DVDm for grossly violating WP:ROWN rules and for being dishonest and malicious.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

One, two, three, four. If multiple people are reverting you, there's obviously no consensus. Even if there were consensus, edit-warring to enforce it would still be inappropriate. See also WP:NOTTHEM. Huon (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2018 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

The reasons are given below in the two replies to user Huon. Also see my replies below to DVDm Musashi miyamoto (talk) 6:59 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Per agreement not to edit article for 48 hours. I strongly recommend you carefully read our edit warring policy NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Huon, Could you please explain why you did not consider the time sequence of events, the fact of new edits, the violation of WP:ROWN, and the wrong claims of DVDm who apologised for them later on. I do not understand why you consider edits 1 and 2 the same as 3 and 4. Can you please clarify? Edit 3 was done after it seemed that the consensus has been reached, so it could not be considered a 3rd revert of the previous edits, because it was a new edit (with sources added as per consensus, which were not there in the previous edits), the 4th edit was then the first revert of the new entry (and not 4th revert), because DVDm grossly violated the WP:ROWN. Therefore I thought that I did the right thing reverting his edit, because he had done it in the violation of the WP:ROWN, therefore I was following the wikipedia rules by reverting his revert done against the rule. Either way there were no four reverts, but two different onces each time. All done in good faith and as per wikipedia rules. DVDm apologised for his mistakes. Therefore I still do not see any reason either for keeping me blocked or for removing my latest edit. If you still see them please clarify why.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I did consider the time sequence; there were four reverts within 24 hours. Adding sources doesn't mean you didn't undo someone else's changes in that edit. WP:ROWN is an essay, someone's personal opinion. While it's good advice, unlike WP:3RR it's not policy. You also didn't revert just one editor. And while DVdm apologized for some comments, I don't see that they now agree your edits are beneficial - otherwise they could easily revert themselves and restore your content. Any of the other editors supporting the consensus are, of course, also welcome to restore the content. If you find that you are the only one upholding the consensus, maybe it's not that much of a consensus in the first place. Huon (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The time sequence shows that I did a new edit after agreeing with Paradoctor that I will add direct sources. Nobody opposed that - that is in fact what they all wanted. So I made the new edit as per the consensus reached. Only after that new edit was done, DVDm disliked it (for wrong reasons, for which he apologised, thus the reasons for his revert do not exist). So this is not true that "there were four reverts within 24 hours", because you cannot consider a new edit with additions as per the consensus to be a continuation of the reverts. How else I was supposed to do those edits after reaching consensus? You said: "If multiple people are reverting you, there's obviously no consensus." This is not true. The reverts by others were done before the consensus was reached. The only person opposing after that, by mistake, was DVDm, but he later apologised for that. No-one else on the talk page opposed my final edits after reaching the consensus, so it is 2 for the edits, 0 against. Also you cannot say that allegedly I am the only one upholding the consensus (btw, this is not true, you ignore Paradoctor) when by blocking me you prevent me from defending my position in the admin notice page and in the article talk page, while people there continue to state untrue statements and I cannot correct them. That is clearly unfair to shut someones mouth and then say hey nobody supports you. This is like a trial without the right to defend. I did not do anything to deserve being blocked. I followed all wikipedia rules to the best of my knowledge.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: [10], [11] for which my apologies. - DVdm (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think you could do worse than do what DVDdm does: try to get some distance. Leaving the content dispute entirely aside, calling fellow contributors "sadistic perverts" or "dishonest" is not a sign of being WP:COOL. I think I understand how you feel right now, so please let me assure you that, while nobody is perfect, editors generally try to do the right thing, DVdm included. If you want, I'll be glad to talk about this some more later, either here or at my place. Until then Paradoctor (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and contributions. The "sadistic perverts" was a general comment not directed to any particular person, it was just a way to express how it looks how some editors behave, but it was obviously not a medical diagnosis, so this should not be understood literally but metaphorically. Regarding DVDm being dishonest, I believe that at that time I had a right to say that, because it looked like he was not honest when saying what he said, and you also noticed that. If he made a genuine mistake then he should understand me why I thought like that. However, in that case his actions could be described as reckless or negligent. Either way he made mistakes, which without a good reason escalated all this into the wrong direction. Also I do not understand why the block includes the admin notice page and the article talk page. How can I defend my position when I cannot write there? I cannot write anywhere (even on your talk page as you suggested) but here. All this what happend here proves my point from the article talk page, therefore after this edit will be completed, I will abstain from editing wikipedia in the foreseeable future, due to the hostile environment here for genuine editors.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"on your talk page as you suggested" I meant "later" as in "after the block expires", sorry for not being clear about this.

"abstain" Sorry to hear that. Anyway, when and if you feel like editing again, feel free to {{ping}} me, maybe I can regale you with anecdotes from my own sorry past. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Note regarding the reliability of some of the sources, see EdJohnston's comment [12]. - DVdm (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

His comment does not state true facts, but I cannot post my rebuttal there due to your blockage. So it is unfair to use it without me being able to defend myself there. For example EdJohnston ignores the fact that that paper about inertia was published in a good peer-reviewed journal (and that information is on that arXiv page: https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775 "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 11th February, 2013", but he just ignored that). Also he falsely claims that "The reference for the change he proposes is a single primary source", while I added several sources for my entries. I did not add more sources in the inertia section, because I do not see any reason for that (but I can add more if that would be consensus). You must remember that these are all fundamental phenomena we are talking about here. Every educated man knows (or should know) that we still do not know what is the nature and source of inertia, gravity and the effects seen in the double slit experiments. That knowledge is an obvious, basic knowledge everyone should have from elementary school, so I do not see a reason to gather a lot of citation, one citation per each entry is more than enough, but I can add more if that would consensus, I just don't see a reasonable reason for doing that in this case. All other entries in that article are either without any sources or just with one source, so why in this case (an obvious case) anyone would want more?Musashi miyamoto (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That other source might be good. This is not urgent. Perhaps it's best to take a deep breath, give it some rest, think about things, and then, after the block expires, start a new topic on the article talk page, with separate proposals for addition of items. With proper sources of course. Keep it factual and dry--wp:COOL, that is. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the same source, not another (in the meaning that it has the same text content). This is somewhat urgent for me, because I wanted to do something else tomorrow and not to waste my time here anymore. It already has taken too much of my time. I will not make that mistake again anytime soon (i.e. I will stop editing wikipedia in the foreseeable future). I assume that people who oppose these obvious edits know what really is inertia, gravity and the effects seen in the double slit experiments. If so, please tell me that, and I would then get the next Nobel Prize in physics (if you do not want to claim the prize yourself with all that knowledge). ;) Musashi miyamoto (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I will unblock you if you agree not to edit the article for 48 hours after you are unblocked (you may use the talk page). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Musashi miyamoto: regarding your declared intention "'I'll wait for about 3 more days to allow possible rebuttals quoting reliable sources, and if nothing will change then I will assume that the consensus has been reached to make the edits.", I strongly recommend not doing that. If nothing will change, and nobody can (or wants to) convince you, that means that there is no consensus to do it. Ignoring that will probably make you end up blocked again, and likely for a longer time, if not indefinite. I think it would be best to get a clear consensus for a change, and then let someone else make the edit to the article. Just my 2 cents... - DVdm (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a logic in it. The situation changes all the time (a case of providing evidence by one party, and then another evidence by another party in rebuttal), so we cannot by default assume that those people who expressed their opinion before something changed still have the same opinion after the change (they may have not even seen the changes), that would be unreasonable. I am reminding that consensus is not reached by voting, but by providing convincing evidence with reliable sources, so if someone just said "I agree", but has not later added any input after the situation has changed, that's hardly an opinion worth consideration, also because such short, one or two word answers without any real input can be suspected to be done by the same person from different accounts or by people who have not bothered to read the discussion in the thread, so they do not know what they are supporting, they could be just supporting someone, because they know that person, and not because they really know what they do. Anyway, there are finally some new substantive inputs, so when I find a time to digest through them and the evidence, I'll get back there, hopefully there will be even more substantive inputs by then there.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing

Something like this, trying to get editors you expect share your point of view to weigh in and sway a discussion in your favor, is called canvassing and considered inappropriate. Please don't do it. If you think a discussion needs more input, you can leave a neutrally-worded statement at a relevant noticeboard such as WT:WikiProject Physics to get additional editors to weigh in. Huon (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know that. Thanks for yout input. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in physics is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Questions of mainstream physics versus fringe theories fall under this arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what is it? Why is it here? What is it for and what does it do? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:AC/DS for the background. This informational notice is given to alert editors who might be venturing into an area which has been the subject of past disputes. Fringe science has been the topic of past problems. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing in the form of personal attacks, bludgeoning and unreasonableness, as evidenced in this ANI thread.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 21:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)