Position: Scale relativity was initially developed by L. Nottale but he is not the only researcher working on the theory. Anyone can check peer-reviewed physical and mathematical literature to verify this. I contend that the deliberate deletions of the article about Scale relativity are suppression of freedom of expression // DP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.65.90 ( talk) 22:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:FREESPEECH may be relevant: although its articles are published under a license allowing redistribution with modification, Wikipedia is a private entity and editing is a privilege. Wikipedia is not subject to free speech laws. — Paleo Neonate – 08:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The thought-police represented by certain users keeps deleting a perfectly valid scientific article. This is a reprehensible practice. It destroys the concept of freedom of expression (universal human right) as well as scientific objectivity. // DP If you Mr Paleo are really interested in a scientific debate please provide contact details. //DP The same for the other polizei.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.65.90 ( talk) 09:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hello again. Wikipedia is simply not the place to do the science or to promote novel ideas: it simply should describe in lay terms topics that are popular enough to be covered by independent sources. Science development should happen at the relevant institutions and via peer-reviewed journals, etc... — Paleo Neonate – 05:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article,
Scale relativity. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying
talk page. If you post your comments there, other
editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article.
Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.
Mr.Sarcastic (
talk) 08:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Mr. S. Please look at the talk and the history of the page before expressing templated opinions. The fairness of the treatment of the subject as per your statments is exactly what I am expressing. The Scale relativity article was BARBARIOUSLY deleted by the thought-police. //DP
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Laurent Nottale, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. Thank you.
Jusdafax (
talk) 16:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Scale relativity, you may be
blocked from editing. It is strongly suggested you discuss the issues raised on the article Talk page
Jusdafax (
talk) 16:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I see you have reverted me. I again suggest you discuss the matter on the article Talk page, which is the proper way, rather than on the redirect page or in edit summaries. Otherwise, you face continued warnings and an eventual block of your edit privledges. Best wishes. Jusdafax ( talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. MrOllie ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Position: Scale relativity was initially developed by L. Nottale but he is not the only researcher working on the theory. Anyone can check peer-reviewed physical and mathematical literature to verify this. I contend that the deliberate deletions of the article about Scale relativity are suppression of freedom of expression // DP— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.65.90 ( talk) 22:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:FREESPEECH may be relevant: although its articles are published under a license allowing redistribution with modification, Wikipedia is a private entity and editing is a privilege. Wikipedia is not subject to free speech laws. — Paleo Neonate – 08:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The thought-police represented by certain users keeps deleting a perfectly valid scientific article. This is a reprehensible practice. It destroys the concept of freedom of expression (universal human right) as well as scientific objectivity. // DP If you Mr Paleo are really interested in a scientific debate please provide contact details. //DP The same for the other polizei.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.65.90 ( talk) 09:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hello again. Wikipedia is simply not the place to do the science or to promote novel ideas: it simply should describe in lay terms topics that are popular enough to be covered by independent sources. Science development should happen at the relevant institutions and via peer-reviewed journals, etc... — Paleo Neonate – 05:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article,
Scale relativity. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying
talk page. If you post your comments there, other
editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article.
Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.
Mr.Sarcastic (
talk) 08:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Mr. S. Please look at the talk and the history of the page before expressing templated opinions. The fairness of the treatment of the subject as per your statments is exactly what I am expressing. The Scale relativity article was BARBARIOUSLY deleted by the thought-police. //DP
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Laurent Nottale, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. Thank you.
Jusdafax (
talk) 16:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Scale relativity, you may be
blocked from editing. It is strongly suggested you discuss the issues raised on the article Talk page
Jusdafax (
talk) 16:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I see you have reverted me. I again suggest you discuss the matter on the article Talk page, which is the proper way, rather than on the redirect page or in edit summaries. Otherwise, you face continued warnings and an eventual block of your edit privledges. Best wishes. Jusdafax ( talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. MrOllie ( talk) 17:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
|
| This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |