User talk:Abluegiant

Welcome!

Hello, Abluegiant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Hexagon did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.

October 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Hexagon, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Hexagon. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Hexagon, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see wp:NOR, wp:CALC and wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Hexagon. DVdm (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Hexagon 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. - DVdm (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2019 (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. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

If you haven't done so please read wp:NOR; wp:CALC and wp:BURDEN — see above. About changes for which there is no consensus, read wp:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."
You don't have to send email to me about this. User behaviour can be discussed on user talk pages.

DVdm (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuff of accusations.

HI User:DVdm, It is you who initiated and engaged in this edit war, when you sought to for invalid and trumped up reasons to remove my content which was not research (original or novel ) but derived from 1st principles, basic geometry and algebra, just deductive, the proof and explanation for why a hexagonal has a property or behaviour. Until you refute the math as being wrong, you have no right to remove the needed content. Until you do so please cease your edit war. Keep well, Abluegiant.

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

@Abluegiant:Wikipedia does not work that way: just take 15 minutes to actually read the policies as outlined in wp:NOR, wp:CALC and wp:BURDEN.

These are not accusations. It is policy. See also wp:edit warring and wp:BRD. After my very first revert (with warning) of your edit, you should have gone to the article talk page to explain why you think that Wikipedia policies should not be followed in your case.

If you don't want to end up blocked, I suggest that you (1) undo your edit in article Hexagon, (2) go to the article talk page Talk:Hexagon, and (3) go to the edit warring report page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Abluegiant_reported_by_User:DVdm_(Result:_) and explain that you have done (1) and (2). Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is no need to reply here and on my user talk page. I have this talk page on my watch list. - DVdm (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Hexagon

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing this Hexagon block

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).

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

Request reason:

It is User:DVdm who initiated and engaged in this edit war, when User:DVdm sought to for invalid and trumped up reasons to remove my content which was not research (original or novel) but derived from 1st principles, basic geometry and algebra, just deductive, the proof and explanation for why a hexagonal has a property or behaviour. Until the math is refuted as being wrong, you have no right to remove the need content or block me, if you choose to do so, you merely really against a Newtoning World and are doomed. User:DVdm using a scatter gun approach by invoking policies wp:NOR, wp:CALC and wp:BURDEN, without presenting specific errors with content, is using policy to achieve any wanted outcome regardless of the purpose of the policy. I thank Spherelogic for their “valuable content” support in their attempt to restore my content. Abluegiant (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Absolutely not. If anything, your block should be extended for having created a sockpuppet to continue edit warring. ST47 (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2019 (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.

2nd appealing this Hexagon block

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).

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

Request reason:

After reading again reading the guide to appealing blocks, it still is User:DVdm who initiated and engaged in this edit war, when User:DVdm sought to for invalid and trumped up reasons to remove my content which was not research (original or novel) but derived from 1st principles, basic geometry and algebra, just deductive, the proof and explanation for why a hexagonal has a property or behaviour. Until the math is refuted as being wrong, you have no right to remove the need content or block me, if you choose to do so, you merely really against a Newtoning World and are doomed. User:DVdm using a scatter gun approach by invoking policies wp:NOR, wp:CALC and wp:BURDEN, without presenting specific errors with content, is using policy to achieve any wanted outcome regardless of the purpose of the policy. I thank Spherelogic for their “valuable content” support in their attempt to restore my content. Thank you for giving this insight on how the wiki community works, I went to the web then wiki to find out the reason why a circle’s radius transcribes itself exactly six time and found nothing, so derived it and decided to share it on wiki, my mistake. If you do not unblock me now you may as well make the block definite and I will find a more fair and democratic place to share knowledge. Abluegiant (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request adds nothing to the prior request. If you are not willing to address your block evasion and edit warring, then your appeal will not be accepted. ST47 (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2019 (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.

3rd appealing this Hexagon block

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).

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

Request reason:

My 2nd request instructed that I had again read the " guide to appealing blocks", and found no thin useful there to add anymore to my case, nor has any other suggested reading, as you all seem intent on falsely labelling my conduct to suit your own intent so you can use policies against me. This is OK as we all reap what we sow. So please unblock me and regardless have a nice day. Abluegiant (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ST47 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2019 (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 fact that other users are mysteriously popping up to restore your edits to Hexagon isn't doing you any favors. ST47 (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abluegiant: I have no control over the 'Mysterious' but logic and reason I do have a handle over, it encourages me that there are others out there that value logic and reason, the world needs more, your attitude and behaviour User:ST47, is why the world is in the mess it is in.