Wavyinfinity

Hello, Wavyinfinity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stellar metamorphosis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Differing Matter Content of the Milky Way Galaxy.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stellar_metamorphosis. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Stellar metamorphosis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Begoon ^talk 04:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have closed the deletion debate of Stellar metamorphosis and deleted the article, because it constituted promotion of a fringe (and I am being generous here) theory, and due to misuse of references.

For instance, take your claim that pulsars could be ejected from a galaxy to become galaxies themselves. You reference the claim to Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies by Halton Arp. I sincerely doubt Arp has ever made such a claim (conveniently, you didn't provide a page reference, or a quotation supporting it). Pulsars are accepted to be neutron stars with a mass of about two stellar masses - how could their mass increase by a factor of billions? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

How does a seed increase its mass into the billions? I'm sure Redwood seeds are quite tiny. Mr. Arp does not include pulsars, I do in stellar metamorphosis. They are the source of all matter creation and are large superconducting magnetic energy storage mechanisms, not stars made of decaying neutrons. This is not acceptable to those who have been conditioned otherwise. It is predicted that they will ridicule and ignore this discovery because it conflicts with their conditioning in school. Argument from authority will be the retort of those who question the validity of entries so I would be wasting my time trying to develop it for public awareness. I tried on wikipedia but was saddled with rules and regulations, which I regretfully admit is to the detriment of the progress of humanities' sciences. My efforts have lead to the creation of other websites for public awareness.

Wavyinfinity

Grey dwarf is up for WP:proposed deletion. Chris857 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Wavyinfinity. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

jps (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

User:Wavyinfinity, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wavyinfinity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wavyinfinity during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 03:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on User:Wavyinfinity/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Quantum mechanics only deals with the orbits of the electron of a single hydrogen atom. The entire periodic table is ignored except for hydrogen. Thus QM is at best, completely wrong about everything." I'm curious. What ever gave you that idea? I'd suggest you get your hands on a standard book like [1] or some quantum chemistry books. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The secrets of nature are not located in a book, they are in the 3.5 billion years of evolution sitting on top of your shoulders. Wavyinfinity

Maybe you are in the wrong place then? See WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know how wikipedia works now. First try to delete scientific articles which disagree with what the editors were taught in school via no original research and notability, then if that doesn't work label the article as fringe and then start trash editing the page as much as possible. Let it be known that all science was at one point original research, fringe work that was certainly the opposite of notable. I have come to the conclusion that wikipedia is simply a hot bed of neurosis and psychosis. Real minds that carry the capacity to think are not welcome. I am simply disappointed. This isn't a collection of human knowledge, its a site overrun by parrots, bean counters and keepers of the faith. Wavyinfinity

I agree with Dougweller. You seem to be in the wrong place as evidenced by your comment above and your userpage, especially the last parts:

• "4. Email and communicate with other revolutionaries. Since wikipedia labels scientific revolutionaries as "pseudoscientists" we have to circumvent them by communicating with each other on facebook, public forums and the like. Do no hesistate to contact me if you have any questions. We have a lot of un-brainwashing of the masses to do." [2]

You are obviously not here to build an NPOV encyclopedia, but to misuse Wikipedia to promote your fringe agenda and use it to coordinate attacks on mainstream science by your fringe "revolutionaries". Wikipedia is not to be used to un-brainwash the masses. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, not a fringe one pushing pseudoscience and woo woo. We inform the masses about your attempts to brainwash them, using RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the syntax of the url in the article's journal ref [1] is missing the url keyword, this line should read:

 | url=http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/complete/PiP-vol-2-%282006%29.pdf#page=115

I also supplied the page number; this for the user doesn't have to find the article in the huge file. An even smaller file from the same journal for ref [1] has this url: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF

91.4.23.216 (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC) me does not like the censoring of the main stream parrots at Wikipedia, why don't they censor 100% of the literary pseudo-science in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=egyptology+translationReply

Egyptology does not pose a threat to Big Bang/Black Hole pseudoscience, Mr. Stephen J. Crothers does. They cannot be exposed for the frauds that they are, that would ruin their careers and credibility. Wavyinfinity

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephen J. Crothers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen J. Crothers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please don't mark controversial edits as "minor". In fact, there is no requirement to mark any edit as minor, so you might consider just not using that option, but I'll leave that call up to you. If you do mark anything other than extremely minor and uncontroversial edits as "minor" again, you'll be called on it for deceptive editing. It would be best to avoid that. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wavyinfinity. Since you've recently edited Plasma cosmology, please be aware that this was one of the topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience:

The locus of this dispute in this case is the editing to a group of articles loosely connected to cosmology and related topics, including Big bang, Plasma cosmology, Intrinsic redshift and others.

This topic went to arbitration because of a series of disputes. As a result of the case, administrators are given power to impose discretionary sanctions on individual editors who work on plasma cosmology. Sanctions are only given if editors repeatedly violate Wikipedia policies. Read WP:ARBPS if you want to know the details. For your own editing, this should not cause concern provided you take special care that you make changes in the article only with consensus. You should endeavor to make article changes that are neutral in character, and simply reflect whatever can be learned from the published sources without adding any bias, personal opinion, or personal inferences from published information. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am on a steep learning curve apparently. Thank you for the advice. Wavyinfinity

It would be best if you didn't edit such articles, including talk pages. This avoids editors addressing nonsensical ramblings posted on talk pages on WP:FRINGE topics, which alas are far too common.

You should probably also remove most of this silliness from your user page per Wikipedia:User_page#Excessive_unrelated_content.

Hope that is useful advice for you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I notice that many (if not all) of your signatures are incomplete. They lack the necessary time stamp. Please sign all your comments properly with four tildes (~~~~). Adding your name manually or using just three tildes is not sufficient. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pierre-Marie Robitaille is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre-Marie Robitaille until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've just looked at this article and you have listed several living people but provided no sources where they self-identify as dissidents against the BB theory. I've removed them. Please do not add them again or any other living people without a reliable source showing that they self-identify as disagreeing with the theory. See WP:BLP. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Due to continued issues with your edits in this topic area, I have filed an arbitration enforcement request against you. Please see WP:AE where you can comment. Regards, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed your comments on the AFD page for your article. Although everyone is welcome to edit on Wikipedia, doing so to teach "students how new ideas are treated in establishment science" is not acceptable. We are building an encyclopedia, so frivolous articles meant to deceive people and waste admin's time is not needed on Wikipedia. Aerospeed (Talk) 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from everything related to astrophysics or cosmology.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.  Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Just as a reminder, This sort of thing is in direct violation of the above sanctions. I wouldn't do that again. --Jayron32 18:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Electron Density versus Temperature.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violations ([3][4][5]) of the astrophysics / cosmology topic ban noted above, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Dragons flight (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

As I mentioned here User talk:178.194.81.188, it seems clear you've taken to evading your block. Expect to be blocke again, particularly if it continues. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Call me the "thought police" or whatever you want but I've deleted the entirety of your polemic on your userpage. Since it made unsupported claims about specific named individuals, it was IMO a WP:BLP vio. I saw this before but couldn't be bothered dealing with it but since you can't resist pushing boundaries I'm not going to stand for such nonsense anymore. Frankly considering the whole thing appears to be a WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:SOAP and given your topic ban, I would suggest you just leave it be even if we're generally fairly lenient about stuff on user pages. However if you add it back minus the BLP vios once your 3 month block has expired, I probably won't do anything. I can't speak for anyone else though. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks to me like I was wrong so I apologise. I'm not going to re-instate your user page stuff. Although I admit I probably wouldn't have done it were it not for the false connection, you did earn your block and the material was at least partially inappropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

It has been found my activity to be unacceptable by the thought police. It is referenced for the viewing public that new ideas which threaten established beliefs are not welcome. This activity is actually akin to book burning. I have already accomplished the mission. I have also been saving all activity on this page for future reference for readers who wish to understand why history is written as such.

It is also suggested for future commenters to not write on this page, it will only make you risk losing face and being severely embarrassed in the future. Wavyinfinity (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for making it explicit and plain that your "mission" here is not to build an encyclopedia, but to misuse Wikipedia as a soapbox where you can aggressively push your fringe POV. Because you show no evidence of a positive learning curve, and you keep repeating these forbidden activities, you don't belong here, and your block should really be an indefinite one.

At the very least, your access to your talk page should be revoked because you are misusing it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is an enforcement request concerning you at WP:AE#Wavyinfinity. Manul ~ talk 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing defiance of your topic ban from astrophysics. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

In February 2014 you were topic banned from anything to do with astrophysics or cosmology, but you've continued to make edits in that topic area. It does not seem you have any intention of following Wikipedia policy. I've issued this block after a discussion of your ban violations at Arbitration enforcement. If you wish to appeal your block, see WP:GAB. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply