User talk:Eric mit 1992

Apologies for Inconveniences Caused[edit]

A given set of Wikipedia users feel that I have caused an inconvenience to others, and that I've acted against the spirit of WP guidelines. I reserve the opinion that I have not committed these infractions, at least in the way it is portrayed that I have, and a trail of my reasoning that serve as the basis for my opinion exists here on my Talk page, and also the Talk page for 'Blacklight Power', where the alleged infractions supposedly took place. Whether or not it is the case that my opinion is correct or incorrect, however, is likely immaterial and a non-sequitor. In the interest of kindness, fairness, reasonableness, cooperativeness, and respect for the WP process, I apologize for any and all inconveniences and infractions that may be associated to me by the specific set of aforementioned WP users, and I will keep this particular event in mind going forward so that I may ensure as best I can that my actions aren't misinterpreted and incorrectly punished by others. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALKDONTREVERT discussion[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Blacklight Power. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. <snip> Jim1138 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim1138, thank you for the kind notice, and the kind advice to Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT. However, I believe that I've 'talked' far more than I've 'reverted' on this topic. Would you do me the favor of inspecting the 'Talk' page that is associated with this topic, and this unfortunate penalty which I must endure, and then summarize on my page, here, below, the number and general nature of my extensive 'Talk' dialogues on this subject, prior-to, simulateous-to, and after any and every edit that I subsequently made on the main article, which served as rightful justification for my edits? Would you also include in your summary the fact that absolutely nobody else involved in reverting my edits, or posting contrary edits, had participated in even a single sentence of related 'Talk'? This is let alone the very _first_ edit I made based on the basis of WP:BANNED which allowed me to make that first edit, and which furthermore forbid anyone from re-inserting the text until the burden of proof laid upon the reference was satisfied by the restoring editor?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blacklight_Power

I have started a section here where you may feel free to summarize the Talk page as described above, if you are so inclined.

Jim1138's Analysis of BLP Talk Page, w/respect to extensive, relevant, and cooperative talk by user Eric_mit_1992, and non-existent Talk by Others[edit]

<*** Jim1138's analysis goes here, if he is so kindly inclined ***>
<*** Jim1138's analysis goes here, if he is so kindly inclined ***>
<*** Jim1138's analysis goes here, if he is so kindly inclined ***>
<*** Jim1138's analysis goes here, if he is so kindly inclined ***>
<*** Jim1138's analysis goes here, if he is so kindly inclined ***>
<*** Jim1138's analysis goes here, if he is so kindly inclined ***>

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR discussion[edit]

I trust it is evident that you broke the WP:3RR rule on July 30. You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will immediately promise to stop editing this article until you can get a talk page consensus for your changes. Consider your options carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed -- I don't believe it is clearly evident that I broke 3RR rule with respect to the context in which my initial edit (the one that supposedly 'started' it all), which was fully justified via WP:BANNED and WP:RS, and wherein the editor who reverted that particular initial edit, 'Jim1138', did so against the guidelines of WP:BURDEN, which state:

 "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source."

My original edit justified by WP:BURDEN:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blacklight_Power&diff=505007804&oldid=505006723

Jim1138's edit:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blacklight_Power&diff=505008151&oldid=505007804

In other words, my initial edit was allowed and justified, I explained the edit clearly in the edit summary and the Talk page, not a single person, let alone Jim1138 contributed to Talk on this matter, and most importantly Jim1138 threw WP:BURDEN and WP:RS out the window by incorrectly restoring the text/reference without meeting the burden of proof laid upon him to find a reliable/authoritative archive associated to the reference, which is against the aforementioned guidelines. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR rule is simply the number of reverts. 9 reverts is more than 3 therefore you broke the rule. Bhny (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jim1138 break any rule by undoing removal of a reference which was correctly removed via WP:BURDEN and WP:RS? If not, please explain why. If so, why isn't Jim1138 suffering a 24 permission block as I am forced to suffer? Eric mit 1992 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Jim didn't break a rule. Burden and RS are guidelines. 3RR is a hard rule. Burden and rs are "widely accepted standard[s] that all editors should normally follow". Why is it that you think your judgements are correct and the problem is with everyone else. Bhny (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a quote referenced to a non-reliable source, Steven Chu was alleged to have said "it's extremely unlikely that this is real, and I feel sorry for the funders, the people who are backing this". A) There was no reliable archive of the aforementioned news article and no clear indication the quote was valid or even existent. B) Point "A" is immaterial because Chu's quote is libelous and clearly infers Mills, BLP employees, and all those directly associated with the business of BLP are committing federal felonies such as fraud. No matter how one looks at this, my original edit was correct, my subsequent attempts to revert non-allowed restorations of the quote were correct, and ultimately, this quote will be removed from the BLP page, wherein, unfortunately, the time frame for this removal is unknown because there are bad actors in play here that I am apparently not allowed to counter by the 'rules', and so I will not break the 'rules' to do so. I, or some other sensible person, will eventually succeed in establishing an unbiased page on BLP.

1.1.1 3RR exemptions  [[WP:3RRNO]]  "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)."

[[WP:BLP]] "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."

[[WP:GRAPEVINE] "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced"

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a company not a person. We can use a quote that says a company is a fraud. That is not even close to being a problem. nobody agrees with your strange reasoning Bhny (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhny -- Have you ever heard of the relation of transitivity, let alone the duty of fiduciary responsibility incumbent upon executives of a corporation? I believe you may have, and if you reintroduce yourself to these concepts, you'll regain your understanding that a statement which accuses an entity of being fraudulent (among other federal infractions) necessarily requires that same statement similarly and equally apply to the individuals involved with the entity, especially if they are directors of the entity. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know about that. You should edit the wikipedia policy pages and add these things. Anyway we are free to add quotes about anything as long as it's sourced properly. Bhny (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions apply to pseudoscience topics[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

I have established in detail why I believe the BLP page should neither be characterized as 'pseuo' nor 'fringe'. See the associated Talk page. Thank you for notifying me that I may appeal to a higher authority to have the aforementioned incorrectly applied characterizations removed from the aforementioned wiki article. I will refrain from editing the categories applied to that page and instead apply for a formal hearing on the matter. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been edit warring at Blacklight Power. This company proposes a method of generating power that, if it worked, would violate the known laws of physics. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement regarding the 'violation' of physics is incorrect, and provably incorrect. The situation is different from what you describe, and most importantly, the physical processes which you are referring to are allowed by known physics given that the previously known equations of physics are applied in the proper fashion. If you would like to understand why, please inform me and I will explain it in detail phased in terms of physics and mathematics, over the phone or voice chat, even, if you are so inclined. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 'Normal' Talk Page is BELOW[edit]

... ... ...

You have mail[edit]

Hello, Eric mit 1992. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Brilliant Light Power - questions.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Jim1138 (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]