User talk:WadeDanielSmith
Welcome
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Talk page chat
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Tests of general relativity are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Tests of general relativity for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Lying about it and banning people doesn't change it either
[edit]You want to improve this article?
Add a section:
"When a Model becomes more real to you than reality itself, so that you delete and ban all arguments or evidence to the contrary, then it has become your IDOL."WadeDanielSmith (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- You don't have "arguments" or "evidence"--you have fringey chatter and strange speculation. You've been doing this as an IP editor as well, and if you keep at it you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to chatter. In regard to your question, "Can you even suggest a LEGITIMATE physics forum which is HONESTLY open for discussion about Relativity, alternatives or improves", I'm not sure. Anywhere but here. We are not a "legitimate physics forum", because we are not a forum. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- He might try at physicsforums. - DVdm (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk page abuse
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Albert Einstein, you may be blocked from editing. Referring to this edit. - DVdm (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Io (moon). Referring to this edit-. DVdm (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It is revealing that you admit that you are thrown out of astronomy forums. Hint: Wikipedia is not a forum, so the threshold to being banned is much lower. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
February 2016
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 21:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Block
[edit]
WadeDanielSmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Who are you to judge my intentions and good will? I have not edited any encyclopedia entry EVER since I was here. I have discussed encyclopedia content and its validity. There is quite a difference. I have not vandalized anything on this site, and my being removed from physics forums for questioning a THEORY is an UNJUST AND UNSCIENTIFIC action, which you use a "poisoning the well" attack on me for mentioning it.
If you don't believe me, go try it yourself. Make an account on "Physicsforumsdotcom" and ask a question which contradicts any of Albert Einstein's theories.
You will be BANNED immediately. That is not just, and the fact you held that against me is also not just.
How was that observation regarding the calendar not worth mentioning? NOr the observation that they couldn't have made the calendar that precisely without knowing alignments? I didn't put that in the article itself. I put that in the talk because I thought it was worth discussing.
You clearly don't want anyone contributing to the encyclopedia anyway, as I explained how that observation was made, and got repeatedly deleted for it. You have people referring to stupid cultural "anus" jokes regarding Uranus on the page, and I got deleted for discussing how to do those calculations, or the needed calculation to find the next one they're looking for. That is quite ridiculous.
I am so sick of immoral administrators banning me for pointing out flaws or relationships which weren't noticed, and then your arrogant self bans me from the encyclopedia for it.
I actually showed calculations, and the basis for the calculation, which is a lot more than the other person did.
Regarding the Einstein article, I assure you the calculation is wrong, whether or not you or anyone else believes it, and whether or not you nor anyone else EVER believes it, the calculation is wrong, and if every person I ever mention it to calls me a crank or a fool for the rest of my life, I'll still keep pointing out that it wasn't done correctly. Period.
God is my witness. Period.
Also, the reason I don't have a reference for that, is because I can't do the correct calculation without a supercomputer, and the Scientists refuse to even try to do the correct calculation, and call you a "Crank" or a "Nazi" for pointing it out.
That it not my fault.
That is an Atheistic dogma which has hijacked the scientific method, and for that matter has hijacked religion, because the Atheists use General Relativity to ban religion from everything public too, which is actually Unconstitutional in the U.S..
Also, let me add that if I'm right, and I'm 100% positive that I'm right, and they dont fix that problem now, they could go for several hundred or thousands of years inventing patchwork abstraction theories to "save relativity" and never figure out how simple the fix really is to physics, because they are already calling Relativity "Scientific Law" (which is a fallacy,) and ostracizing anyone who questions it.
Guess what? Man doesn't actually know "Scientific Law". Man knows "Scientific Theory" at best, which is at best "Mans best measure and estimate" of a scientific law.
Even the terms "Law of Gravity" and "Newton's Laws" are dangerous.
It's obvious that something we call "Gravity" exists.
What is not obvious is the exact relationships and mechanisms that make it work, and just because an equation appears to be more accurate or precise over one distance relationship does not mean it is more accurate nor precise over all distances or relationships. THAT is a problem.
When you call it a "Law" nobody ever examines it again. That is not longer "Science". That is now a religion, because your "model" has become an "Idol". When your model becomes more real to you than reality itself, that is idolatry, and THAT is where the supposedly "Scientific Community" rests right now: Model worship, Idolatry.
Decline reason:
You are arguing here that you discussed the physics instead of working on improving the encyclopedia. That is precisely why you were blocked. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to discuss the physics. Huon (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
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.
WadeDanielSmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How can you be intellectually honest about an Encyclopedia entry without pointing out potential flaws in the claims made by the theorist?
How does that help anybody?WadeDanielSmith (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Sorry, had to correct the markup code, which I lost track of.
The original administrator blocked me forever, so the threat of not helping until the block expires is meaningless and doesn't help either of us either way. WadeDanielSmith (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Where do your rants like this one even discuss article content? Max Semenik (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
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.
WadeDanielSmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In the cases you are citing, I got deleted by the administrator for discussing the content and validity. Then I explained the fact there are no references for contestation of the the validity, because of censorship.
It literally can't be helped, unless you'll let people start making articles as rebuttals to claims in other articles.
I'll add, I am Genuinely Concerned about an intellectual Dark Age regarding the science of Physics. Okay. Honest to God concerned about that, because the theories being developed around relativity are turning into more and more abstract and statistical ghosts, that anything anyone can actually test...yet it is demanded that everyone accept it as a "fact".
I cannot accept that as valid science.
I usually use all caps for stress because italics and bold hurt my eyes. I know that is technically against the rules, but that's just the way it is. I write like that because I'm the author of the post, and if I can't read my own writing without hurting my eyes, it's pointless. Other people take capitalization as offensive,for some reason that makes absolutely no sense to me and is not based in logic or reason. WadeDanielSmith (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You still haven't addressed even remotely anything recommended in our guide to appealing blocks; there's no reason for a reviewing admin to consider a word of your request. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
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.
WadeDanielSmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Uh, yes, I have. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. It's like you can't read English language or something. If you aren't going to unban me, then I want you to delete all of my prior posts, because you do not have intellectual rights to my posts, and you don't have a right to hide them from me or anyone else. That's actually a form of copyright infringement. My own original thoughts belong to me in this country, I don't know where you come from though. Fact is that was censorship, the same as always. I reviewed your terms and you don't even offer a reasonable method of resolution. I do not apologize fo my actions, because I did nothing morally nor legally wrong. Unlike some people, I don't "take responsibility" for when I do no wrong. Oh yeah, I calculated that Mayan series by hand, because a calculator can't do it. You should try it, you might be shocked at what it turns out to be related to. I don't know how they figured that one out, but it's too perfect to be a coincidence. WadeDanielSmith (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We don't delete user contributions; you may want to have a closer look at the blurb that shows up at the bottom of the page whenever you edit (the one that begins "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License"). No valid unblock reason given. Talk page access revoked to prevent for wasting our time with crap. If you want to be told the same thing a few more times, you can try appealing via WP:UTRS as well.OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
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.