User talk:Marrew

July 2022

Please do not make Wikipedia articles more difficult to read by introducing terminology that is used rarely, if at all, in reliable sources, as you did repeatedly at "International System of Units". Jc3s5h (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using incorrect terminology is the confusing thing. The speed of light is not a constant; if it were the entire field of optics would not exist. Using the correct terminology can lead people to learning something new, instead of giving them the wrong concept. Marrew (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing against consensus. It is not uncommon to refer to more complicated concepts with short phrases that do not contain, within the phrase, all the nuances. The phrase "speed of light" is commonly used in the scientific literature as a reference to the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum. The phrase "speed of causality" is rare and will not be understood by most readers. Continued editing against consensus will be reported to administrators for appropriate resolution.

That "speed of light" is used to refer to a more nuanced meaning is proven in one of the sources cited in the article:

International Bureau of Weights and Measures (2019-05-20), The International System of Units (SI) (PDF) (9th ed.), ISBN 978-92-822-2272-0, archived from the original on 18 October 2021

That publication, in its preface on page 122 states

Among them are fundamental constants of nature such as the Planck constant and the speed of light, so that the definitions are based on and represent our present understanding of the laws of physics.

Jc3s5h (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The speed of light is simply not a constant, and referring to it as such is MORE confusing to people who for example, might be studying optics, an entire field based on the fact that the speed of light is not a constant. Using the correct language IS NOT adding confusion, it is adding specificity and an opportunity to learn something new. Just because the people think the wrong phrase should go here, does not make it correct. The C literally stands for causality. Go ahead and report this, please, it should be corrected, imho. Marrew (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having it listed as the speed of causality rather than the erroneous speed of light makes it so that when the hyperlink is clicked it still goes to the article on the speed of light, only it automatically scrolls down to the more appropriate section of the article titled: Upper limit on speeds. This makes it more clear, and easier to understand for all fields. Marrew (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 71#Is "speed of light" misleading? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marrew! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of International System of Units several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

Can someone please explain to me this alleged edit warring, when based on the RfC there is clearly no "consensus" to leave the error in the article as is?

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:International System of Units, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ones with the impulse to undo edits are the ones arguing for a more confusing, less specific version which is literally wrong. C does not stand for light, nor the speed of it. It literally stands for causality. Marrew (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c comes from the latin celeritas, it does not stand for causality.

And since you can't use the talk page, I've reported you for WP:3RR violations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Marrew reported by User:Headbomb (Result: ). Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that this discussion should include the ad hominem from Headbomb; an insult to my intelligence by making a hyperlink to an article appear as the word "duh" in this talk page.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Is_%22speed_of_light%22_misleading?

Further, I would like to insist that listing something that changes as a constant is misleading, and that more specificity can lead to better understanding and further reading. Marrew (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at International System of Units. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Being a newer editor here I was unaware of the 3RR, however I would like to point out that I was not just simply trying to revert to my original edit. I was trying to find an acceptable alternative, having finally settled on simply including the same language used in the paragraph of the article for the table, to make it more specific and less ambiguous. Having a wiki admin mock my intelligence on a talk page (see above) certainly does not encourage me to see things their way. I honestly do not understand the resistance to adding a tiny bit of context for clarity in the table (especially given that this additional context is apparently acceptable in the paragraph).Marrew (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I cannot find where you obtained consensus for your changes. In fact, I see a uniform consensus against the changes you were making. I suggest you take this time to read and understand WP:3RR and WP:NOR and hope once your block expires, you refrain from further edits like the ones you made. Your next block is likely to be substantially longer. Yamla (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The consensus you are looking for is the fact that the phrase "in a vacuum" is being used in the paragraph of the article in question, there is honestly no good reason to not include it in the table as well. Marrew (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is not consensus, that is your personal opinion. If you continue, after your block expires, you will be blocked for a longer time. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Immediate resumption of prior behaviour

I have now blocked you from International System of Units for one month. Even once that block expires, you are not to reintroduce your changes unless and until you unambiguously obtain consensus for your changes. I'll note this will almost certainly not happen and I very, very strongly urge you to stop trying. Your next block will likely be indefinite. -- Yamla (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand this block. I was previously block for adding these words, now I'm being blocked for removing them? Is consistency not important in an article? Marrew (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone gave me such compelling arguments about why the extra context is not needed in the table, I figured that must be consensus on the topic and simply moved to make the paragraph be consistent with the format in the table. How is this "Immediate resumption of prior behaviour"?? Marrew (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where on Talk:International System of Units you obtained consensus for this change. I do not believe you will be able to identify where this was achieved and that's the whole problem. --Yamla (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire conversation RE: the exact same phrase in the table. How are you not seeing that as a consensus? It was stated to me several times that the accepted way is without the extra qualifier. If consensus was not reached, why was my edit to the table, removed?

I do not know how to create a link directly to the comments made, but if you scroll all the way down, and read the entire "Is "speed of light" misleading?" section of this page:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:International_System_of_Units

You will see that "The term "speed of light" universally refers to the speed of light in vacuum." was re-iterated at me by other admins several times. Is this not consensus? If not, what is? Marrew (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly see zero consensus for you to remove that from the body of the article. Seriously, you are so, so, so far past WP:DROPTHESTICK. Now, right now, would be a good time for you to do so. It's hard to tell if you are being deliberately obtuse here or simply aren't capable of contributing collaboratively. I've given you a one month block from the article itself to give you a chance to prove yourself. So far you are proving my block was not enough. Please, please, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Yamla (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that consensus for every single change must be obtained explicitly before the change is ever made? If that is the case, and how the policy of wiki is supposed to be, then I accept that and will drop it. How ever it does confuse me that everyone is given the ability to make contributions and edits, but then aren't allowed to do that until some allegedly nigh impossible consensus is achieved. It also confuses me that my accepting the consensus about the table is being interpreted by you as some sort of contravention of consensus when I try to make things be less confusing for readers with a small modicum of consistency.

Calling me obtuse certainly isn't going to endear me to understanding your point of view. I am obviously new to editing wikipedia, and I have a particular interest in the field of optics. My edits have solely been in the interest of clarity, I am not simply incapable of collaboration, I am literally trying to be collaborative here. Marrew (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious changes need consensus. You know perfectly well your changes are contentious because you've literally been blocked for them. If you wish to be unblocked sooner, you are free to make an unblock request and an independent admin will review it. I do not believe this discussion is going anywhere, so this will be my last response. --Yamla (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there it is, calling it quits as soon as you are called out for ad hominem. Maybe try substantive arguments on the merits of the issues next time, you'll have more luck being understood. Good day to you. Marrew (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, yamla, the contentious change was "the speed of causality" which was dropped after much discussion on the talk page. Pointing out the flaw in listing something that is not a constant in a list of constants is a separate edit/change, and you are conflating the two. Marrew (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After discussion about some extra context for an entry that is not a constant in "defining constants" ("in a vacuum" for "the speed of light" in the table), I made an edit to make the article body, to be consistent with what seemed to be consensus (removing "in a vacuum" from the paragraph). I do not understand the cited lack of consensus, when the originally 'contentious' change (changing "speed of light" to "speed of causality") was left behind a while ago, and so many reasons were given by a variety of editors as to why the extra context is not needed. Marrew (talk) 10:23 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring. Edit warring is wrong even when you are right. Edit warriors always think they are right. What should one due instead of edit warring? What steps can one take to resolve a content dispute?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The editor has resumed the edit war by editing against the consensus at Talk:International System of Units/Archives/09/2022#RfC on entries in tables. I will now place a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above report is now at Wikipedia:Administrator's notice board#. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain this block to me, as based on the RfC there is clearly no "consensus" to leave the error in the article as is? The alleged warring edits are different and unique, not simply repeats of the same edit.. Marrew (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not understand how removing factually incorrect and redundant information from an article constitutes disruption. Marrew (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were asked to describe how to resolve an editing dispute, and even given a hint as to the answer, but declined with this request to give that answer. If you don't understand how what you did was disruptive, you shouldn't be editing until you do, meaning the block is correct. As such, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marrew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block for edit warring does not make sense as the alleged warring edits are both new and unique edits from previous edits, and also were following suggestion from the RfC (shortening the edit from "in a vacuum" to just "in vacuum"). Regardless, my issue is that one of the entries is still in conflict with the title of the table, Furthermore, based of the RfC, there is clearly no consensus to keep the table as it is either.

Decline reason:

Closing as stale, please use WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have decided to remove your talk page access because you clearly aren't getting this even after having been told by others. Another admin may restore it if they feel a need to, but if(more likely when) your request is declined, you will need to use WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]