| Revision as of 20:42, 19 February 2010 editNeptunerover (talk | contribs)1,605 edits brought some talk back← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:34, 24 February 2010 edit undoCunard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users41,034 editsm redirecting to userpage | ||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| : <small>The user that started the thread (]) was indefinately blocked for continued disruptive editing here (]) and elsewhere immediately after his prior 12-hour block expired.</small> | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been '''] indefinitely''' from editing for {{#if:continuous disruptive and tendentious editing|'''continuous disruptive and tendentious editing'''|repeated ]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:yes|]] 21:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 --> | |||
| Misplaced Pages is ]. Per your continued use of this page in that format, this page has been ] and locked. You may ] by mailing your unblock request to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. — ] 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Protection lifted after email exchange with NeptuneRover. — ] 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == == | |||
| Fellow Wikipedian ], I wish to bid you an apology for any and all of my previous statements made to you, with a couple in particular. No matter how I may have tried to not be truly offensive, it was still inappropriate of me, and that you took offense is what matters, and so for causing you distress, I am sorry. --] (]) 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban and cautionary note == | |||
| Neptunerover, you are indefinitely topic banned from the reference desks and associated talk page per discussion at ]. Also note that, while there is some support for an indefinite block, that doesn't seem to have consensus at present. But you should realize that the community is on the verge of exhausting it's good faith an patience, and if you don't demonstrate a willingness and ability to build the encyclopedia, or at least ] others in the effort, you are likely to be banned from editing anywhere on wikipedia. ] (]) 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Did I respond on the wrong page? I had meant to ask you about the resolution on the other page, since my understanding is that there were other issues involved in that process. | |||
| :I was also concerned about possible multiple votes by a single individual, although they might not be exactly the same: ] and ] --] (]) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Neptunerover, let me explain in the hope that it helps guide your future conduct on wikipedia (if you are ever unblocked): | |||
| ::* A discussion at ANI and other places on wikipedia are not a majority vote; the bolded supports and opposes are simply added for easy visual parsing and as a summary of the expressed opinion (which should ideally justify that summary). As such, while Treasury tag's comments were considered in assessing the consensus, the user's !vote was not double counted. What was much more influential in my judgment were the opinions of users who looked at your original complaint sympathetically and with fresh eyes, only to conclude that ''you'' were the one being consistently disruptive at the refdesks and other pages. You'll note that not a single editor at ANI expressed the opinion that your editing on wikipedia was productive and only good faith prevented a consensus for indefinite block from being reached (I see that your post-ban behavior has however led to that conclusion anyway. | |||
| ::* At ANI you did raise the issue of reprimanding SteveBaker and investigating TreasuryTag but I, as others, considered those to be simple red-herrings aimed at distracting attention from ''your'' disruptive editing, and those proposals frankly reflected poorly on you. Thus the only issue I addressed while closing the thread was your topic ban and a final warning. | |||
| :: I am not placing this note here simply to make you appreciate how others view your editing, and how close you are to being permanently banned from the project as a net-negative. I realize that you have been indef. blocked now - '''''if''''' you wish to resume editing, you will need to show that you understand why your conduct is considered problematic, and a commitment that it will change. Barring that, I doubt you'll be permitted to contribute any further to this project. ] (]) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you. My intelligence mix and manner of understanding and responding to words seems unwelcome here. I'm sure I won't die if I'm not a part of Misplaced Pages, and I'm sure Misplaced Pages will struggle on without my help. This place isn't my life. --] (]) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Honestly, I am impressed by the maturity you show in that comment. I wish more editors would realize that (1) preventing someone from editing wikipedia is not a violation of fundamental human rights, and (2) being prevented from editing wikipedia is not a disaster of apocalyptic proportions. Each one of us is unsuited for some activity or another by ability or temperament, and it helps if we try to find what interests and suits us rather than try to extend an unpleasant relationship. Wish you the best in whatever activity you take up next. Cheers. ] (]) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for being an adult. --] (]) 11:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == awesome paragraph == | |||
| I consider this an awesome paragraph you wrote on the inflation (cosmology) talk page: | |||
| {{Quotation|"This effect of infinite redshift is observer dependent--- if you fall through the horizon, you don't see anything peculiar happen. The observers that see infinite redshift are those that are outside the black hole. The mushing up of things near the horizon is an artifact of the mathematics--- you don't have an infinite collection of layers of stuff on the surface of a black hole. The cut-off is quantum mechanical, and the principle which governs how to fix the description of horizons so that they don't pile up layers forever is called the holographic principle. The holographic principle is the only known way to make sense of the external description of a black hole. It cuts out the interior, and tells you that the black hole is described just by the stuff outside the horizon, heuristically (meaning not rigorously) you can imagine that there is a planck-scale thin skin around the black hole, and there is nothing going on inside this skin."}} | |||
| Because what you wrote made sense to me, I'm curious if this makes sense to you: I see the interior of a black hole as being the same thing as the exterior of the galaxy, with the boundary of a black hole being just another external boundary of the 'set' of stuff. Inside a black hole there is no stuff; it's just another part of the ] that surrounds everything. Would mine be a holographic interpretation? Thanks. --] (]) 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I suppose this response is a little late now. Thank you for your comments. The holographic principle applies where there are gravitational horizons, locations where time seems to stop for an observer at a certain place. This doesn't happen for galaxies. I think your question was more philosophical than physical.] (]) 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no late. Thank you. Philosophical sounds like me. --] (]) 11:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:34, 24 February 2010
Redirect to: