User talk:Moroder~enwiki

Please don't include non-peer reviewed papers in science articles while removing peer-reviewed ones

Moroder, Welcome to Wikipedia. Apparently you think that in Wikipedia you may delete opinions with which you disagree and add opinions with which you agree. Not so! Please keep your opinions as to what is "right" or "wrong" to yourself.

It doesn't matter if you ridicule certain countries (as long as you don't do it here!), nor does it matter if you think that scientists who have their own opinions are "unscientific" or 'incorrect". Before getting into trouble I advice you to read the policies, starting with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And please take heed of the policy for science articles to only refer to peer-reviewed articles in respected journals. Thanks to the policy we editors must abstain from doing our own reviews. Harald88 17:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS on a more positive note: apparently you are knowledgable about physics topics. I like to encourage you to add information from scientific papers to the relevant physics articles in the places where such is lacking -- there is still quite a lot to be done. Harald88 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I know I am. I just don't like antirelativistic pseudo-science. And I remove it when I see it Moroder 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like pseudoscience in science articles, and the peer-review rule provides a measure of protection as it blocks most of that. Just be prepared that self-opinioned actions will often be speedily undone, unless you convince other editors that you improve the quality of the article -- for example by replacing a referenced paper by a much better one that conveys the same opinion or by adding another high quality reference that conveys a differing opinion. Adding better references rarely causes disagreement, and in the long run the poorer references are removed if superfluous. Cheers, Harald88 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing phony references is even better. The paper in discussion has no room in an encyclopedia Moroder 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove sections simply because they don't correspond to your anti-mainstream view. General relativity is nowadays regarded as a theory of gravitation. Harald88 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't object to that, I objected to your insinuation that GR is somewhat unable to deal with accelerated motion. Moroder 01:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insinuate that and I agree that the phrasing was clumsy. Happily an anon (you?) motivated the reason for deletion and I fixed that. (I now copy this to the Talk page where it belongs). Harald88 12:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with Harald88

Moroder - First of all my own "welcome to Wikipedia". I assure you that I am more on your side than Harald's, and have had my own run-ins with him already. He learns as he goes, but he definitely is not a trained physicist.

That said, you need to read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Being a good scientist is neither necessary nor sufficient to being a good editor here even on the science articles. Instead you need to bring to this venture both a reasonable amount of knowledge and a willingness to work with people, as well as a willingness to work within the structure of Wikipedia. I have seen experts get pushed out because they try to force their opinions on Wikipedia and suppress other valid viewpoints. OTOH I have also seen blatant crackpots get bounced a lot faster.

My advice to you is to focus on content in your edits. Removal of inappropriate material is far preferenable to placing derogatory editorial comments within it. If Harald cannot justify his desired content, I am happy to back you up on its removal. The presense of well-meaning but mistaken editors in an issue here, but that is just part of the landscape. I assure you that the overall community does respect knowledge, and if the community is respected by you it will return that respect 10-fold to you. --EMS | Talk 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, EMS. I tried editing out the incorrect stuff but User:Harald88 puts it right back in. This is frustrating. Could you please take out the Unnikrishnan paper from the Twins paradox. I explained the reasons why in PJacobi's talk page. Thank you for your vote of confidence, I am a professional physicist and it pains me to see junk being peddled as science Moroder 16:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have killed the last half of the offending section, including that silly reference. (The other lost reference was from the Australian journal of physics, which is probably as noteworthy as the Indian journal that other article was published in.) If you can back me up on that, I would appreciate it. --EMS | Talk 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much better.The Australian piece is as junky as the Indian one, good riddance. I will definitely back you up. Moroder 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on the Twin paradox article

I strongly suggest that you defer to Harald88's wishes and not refer to him as "Harry". While Harald88 has at times been incivil on Wikipedia himself, a better approach is to reply as dispassionately as possible. Since Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus, this approach will almost certainly benefit you in the long run. Harald88 is more than capable enough of discrediting himself with gems like this, but your response to that didn't really help. At very least, please refrain from attributing your opinions to other users who are perfectly capable of presenting our own views. As far as 12.30.216.138 goes, I encourage you to tone down your criticism of him as well. Calmly lay down logic, reason, and solid scientific and mathematical arguments, and his views will likely collapse under the weight of his own detritus. Give it some thought, anyway.

Having said that, we do seem to have a consensus at the current time to leave out the junk from the "Origins" section and the wholly inappropriate references from the "GR" section. So the article is in a much more unbiased state than at any time in the last year. That's great! I suppose there might be consensus to remove the NPOV tag, but I for one don't care too much about that. It's a nice tribute to the sour grapes of a user who had material removed fully under consensus. Plus the article does need more improvement.

Good job suggesting and inserting the mathematical treatment as per DVdm. That is precisely what this article needs.

Finally, one last thought. While it would be nice to have a decent Wikipedia article on the twin paradox, in the great scheme of things, who really cares? It's entirely possible that the junk recently removed from the article could be reinserted, or new, completely bogus material could be added at any time, all within consensus. That's just the way Wikipedia works. People take it way too seriously. Don't fall into that trap. Tim Shuba 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on Harald88

I don't think that it is fair to call Harald an anti-relativist. He supports relativity at least on general principles. However, he seems to have little understanding of what relativity is.

Harald mistook the Unnikrishkan article as evidence of an alternate view within the relativity community on the twin paradox. it is unfortunate, but he lacks the tools to judge the content of the articles that he is finding. He also does not know what he does not know, which is even more of a problem. --EMS | Talk 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Harry left the same "marks" on the Maurice Allais, Dayton Miller and until recently, Luminiferous aether articles. Moroder 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are making trouble for yourself

Moroder -

You have to stop calling Harald88 "Harry". It is totally inappropriate and unnecessary.
You have to realize that you have to come at a subject from a neutral point of view. If you hate a subject with a passion, then you should not edit its article, but instead restrict yourself to commenting on the article's discussion page. I don't edit the black hole pages for just that reason. By the same token, you should lay off of the Maurice Allais article.

You can be a good editor here, but there needs to be some respect for the articles and the other editors, even those that you don't like. Harald is a nuisance, but he does learn over time and survives because of it. You need to do the same. If you persist in creating put-downs, the community will sooner or later take action against you. --EMS | Talk 17:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for giving the link to the paper on an noncommercial site. But You accused me vandalism (→Reverted ErNa's vandalism) when I removed a link to an commercial paper. That was not polite. ErNa 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evading Ban

I have often wondered if you are User:Ati3414 evading your ban due to your similar hostile nature, wording of phrases, and choice of arguements. Now that you have began posting self-promotional spam again, it is clear you are indeed Ati3414. Please stop posting immediately. -- 130.126.15.57 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have chosen to continue posting despite the request to stop using your sock puppet to avoid a perma-ban. We both know you are User:Ati3414, please at least exit gracefully by ahering to your ban and don't make us waste any administrators' time to verify it publicly. This is your final warning before an official sockpuppet removal request is filed. -- 130.126.15.145 04:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSP

Hi, I noticed you're having difficulty with the formatting of the sockpuppetry case you're trying to file at WP:SSP. Since the formatting of the page is somewhat difficult, it might be best if you tell me what you're trying to do, and I can help you. Your efforts are overwriting or obscuring previous cases; I can help you submit your case without damaging the efforts of others. 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I am dealing with a well known stalker and three of his sockpuppets. Here is the text:

User:Gregory9

Suspected sockpuppeter

Gregory9 (talk · contribs)

Suspected sockpuppets

130.126.15.57 (talk · contribs)
130.126.15.145 (talk · contribs)
HarmonyThree (talk · contribs)

Report submission by

Moroder 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

All three have signed up in the last few days, have zero contributions to wiki, do not do anything else than file a series of false reports against an established user and share the same IP address from the same university: UIUC. The "puppets" belong to the same user with a long history of stalking.

130.126.15.57 on 14 February 2007

130.126.15.145 and HarmonyThree on 24 February 2007

No contributions other than the fake reports and harrassment. Moroder 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That text should appear on the page now. Take a look at WP:SSP and make sure. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, looks great. Time to get rid of the 4 "puppets" before he generates more. This is all he generates, no valid contributions to wiki. Moroder 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the report. Even if the same individual has been editing from all accounts, I don't see any evidence that these accounts have in any way engaged in abusive sockpuppeting. There is nothing that says you cannot have multiple accounts.--Isotope23 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]