Uruk2008
unreliable sources
edit
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You are using some fringe meaning for Quantum vortex instead of the mainstream definition of it. Contrary to your claim here your sources are not reliable, and, sorry to be so harsh about it, but they all smack of pseudoscience promotion against mainstream definitions.
Wikipedia uses reliable sources. However, you are adding as sources the following material: unpublished material, personal websites, arxiv papers, and all sort of stuff on Quantum_mind [1], Zero-point_energy [2] (in this last group of edits you also took out all internal links to other articles in wikipedia).
You need to drop the use of websites like stardrive.org, quantumconsciousness.org or astrosciences.info. Some of your references do appear to have some merit, like [3], which is actually an article appeared at Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society[4]. However, you are still using a philosophical journal to source a physics claim instead of using, well, you know, a journal on the field of physics.
Your actions were already discussed here at ANI and in Talk:Zero-point_energy#Urok, where you didn't post not even once even after reverting back your edits several times.
P.D.: You also edited out the doi reference again in Thermobaric_weapon, after being told here to discuss it on the talk page shortly before being blocked for edit warring. You didn't make a single edit to the talk page, even altough there is a section dedicated to discussing that exact change and your sources at Talk:Thermobaric_weapon#Extent_of_damage_claim. Also, in that group of edits you introduced two unreliable sources, and one reliable source that had nothing to do with the statement that it was sourcing (the article says that it was first used by germans, but the source only says that the technology is from russians). I have improved the doi reference, it as article here.
P.D.D.: Mind you, you actually added good sources at Electromagnetic theories of consciousness, the published papers of the named scientists. Try to add stuff like that instead of google caches of geocities pages, and discuss stuff calmly on the talk page if you get reverted. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing
editUruk2008 - You have been warned repeatedly here on your talk page and in other venues to discuss controversial changes, those you have repeatedly made and edit warred over, on the article talk pages and/or the notes/warnings here on your talk page. You have repeatedly failed to heed those warnings and are now edit-warring on an increasingly large set of articles, without any discussion.
This behavior violates our policies on edit warring - what you're doing is known as sterile reverts and sterile edit warring, in that you have repeatedly refused to discuss changes prior to re-making them, after being warned on both your talk page and article talk pages that the changes were controversial and that they needed more supporting evidence.
When this block expires, you are welcome to resume editing. HOWEVER - If you return to sterile edit warring, refusing to discuss changes which have been found to be controversial or unsupported and simply re-making them, you will be reblocked for longer durations.
This behavior is a slap in the face to the rest of the Wikipedia community and the collaborative editing model which Wikipedia is based on. Refusing to discuss things and insisting simply on changing them over and over again is not acceptable behavior.
I urge you to look around and understand Wikipedia's user policies in more depth before you return to editing. I am sure you can come to understand them. I hope you can come to abide by them, and work with the rest of the Wikipedia editors community to build a better encyclopedia over time. If you continue to reject the policy and working with the community, your ongoing ability to edit will be curtailed, if need be permanently. I don't want to see that happen. Please review the policies and make a good faith effort to abide by them going forwards.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. 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) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)