User talk:Zazby

Welcome!

Hello, Zazby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Talk page chat

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:One-way speed of light for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

48 hour block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block was unjustified in the first place because my comment was not a "philosophical musing" as Martin Hogbin suggests but a clear point about distinction between preferred frame being undetectable and it not existing They are distinct. Also pointing out that Einstein uses speeds c+v and c-v for light in and with respect to a moving frame. This is factual and can be seen clearly in his original paper. Also it is just a discussion page !!

Decline reason:

This edit summary is more than enough reason for you to take a couple of days off. It shows a misunderstanding of a) the community that is Wikipedia, b) the problems surrounding WP:NPA's, c) the fact that talkpages are not to be used to discuss the topic, but are there to discuss improvements to the topic and therefore "chat" can be removed, and d) the fact that Wikipedia is nothing to do with "free speech" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 23 September 2010 (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 above "reason" is nonsense ! How on earth can one discuss improvements to the topic without discussing the topic ? If there is a misleading statement in the topic article then in order to explain how it should be improved it is obviously necessary to make some sort of statement about the topic itself ! What I added can hardly be called a "discussion" by itself as it is a short set of statements pointing out discrepancies between what the article says and what Einstein has actually written in his seminal paper, which I reference with a link. If instead of a knee-jerk reaction of deleting anything with the slightest hint of criticism, rather a moment's attention was paid to the (very simple) math in Section 3 of the linked paper together with the straightforward point I am making, it would be quite clear that the suggestions I made are perfectly valid.

For goodness' sake, the mathematics and reasoning in the crucial Section 3 are easily within the grasp of bright sixth-form school science students, so it's really inexcusable to reject and block a few brief comments without providing ANY cogent reason at all why they are not the intended refinements to the article.

Just dismissing them as "philosophical musings" without checking against the linked paper is not only inaccurate but somewhat arrogant and as un-scientific an attitude as could be imagined !

When constructive criticism is banned without reason then the fundamental motivation of Wikipedia is effectively dead. Zazby (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Zazby (Mike Greene, 195.194.10.178), please note that:

your identical objections were already thoroughly discussed (and dismissed by 4 different authors) in this collapsed discussion on the talk page of another article,
apart from the first question, the entire discussion was off topic (i.e. not about the article, but about the subject) in the context of that article as well,
personal remarks or interpretations of some external source resort under original research and synthesis of published material,
the remarks you are trying to make, could only be on topic on the talk page of a (non-existing) article titled The interpretation of a section of Einstein's paper and its repercussions on what we think about the one-way speed of light but they are not on topic on the talk pages of One-way speed of light or Special relativity,
you made similar personal attacks when that inappproriate discussion was closed,

Please take some time to acquaint yourself with our basic policies -- see the pointers on top of your talk page. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]