User talk:Sui docuit

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sui docuit, 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)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cresix (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of your book - some advice and warnings[edit]

Hello, Sui docuit. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Hello DVdm, For starters, I am completely new to Wikipedia protocol; I have no interest in controversy of any kind. I do have some original ideas about the nature of time and nothing interests me more than having a logical discussion of those ideas. I’m puzzled and concerned about your comments about the source of my ‘comments’ regarding time dilation. I was not aware when I cited that source that it did not qualify as reliable. When I submitted my article to them it was with the understanding that they submitted their articles to peer review; when the editor did not inform me of any such comments I assumed that it was because their ‘peers’ accepted my article as written. If you reject my article after it has been published, how can I have it re-published by a journal that you do accept? My article did contain some original information (which was based on logic) but my comment was to include an alternated way to graphically illustrate time dilation; it specifically stated that my diagram did not contradict existing ways of illustrating time dilation, it just suggested an alternate approach which I thought (and think) could be useful. I would welcome comments about either the relevance or accuracy of the diagram. My purpose in writing the original article was to encourage a discussion of the ideas I suggested. I don’t understand why you say that I am engaged in an ‘edit war”. It takes two to tango, and engaging in an edit war is absolutely the last thing I want. I have a question – I am fully in accord with Wikipedia’s policy of being an encyclopedia and as a result Wikipedia rejects unproven concepts; but when I use logic to discuss a topic my logic has to be based on concepts that have already been proven. Why is it my responsibility to re-prove those concepts? It seems to me that it is my responsibility is only to show their relevance. (I am illustrating my use of logic when I say this). Sui docuit ````[reply]

68.209.176.47 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Sui docuit (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Sui docuit[reply]

More here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Time dilation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Measuring the Speed of Light concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Measuring the Speed of Light, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Measuring the Speed of Light[edit]

Hello, Sui docuit. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Measuring the Speed of Light".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. G13 account of Linguist111 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Regarding your question on the IRC help channel: You may want to check out WP:Referencing for beginners. The video at that page explains how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes for your references. Huon (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Time dilation, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please note that the source you provided with your edits does not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Also note that a similar edit was already reverted by user KylieTastic - DVdm (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Time dilation. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Time dilation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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) 18:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Time dilation. - DVdm (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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) 18:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. See [1] - DVdm (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Time dilation. 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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring other editors' concerns and just reverting is not an option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing Articles Based on Logical Proof

I would like to be able to generate some comments on articles addressing Special Relativity and Time Dilation. Both topics are originally based on the Michelson-Morley experiment (conducted in 1887). Since then there have only been two types of experiment conducted which address those topics because it is very difficult to experiment with objects travelling at nearly the speed of light. These experiments are: • The Ives-Stillwell experiment which showed that the time it took for a muon to decay was a function of the speed at which the muon was travelling through space. • The Hafele-Keating experiment which showed that clocks which were aboard commercial airplanes experienced time more slowly than clocks which remained on Earth. • Also, although our understanding of the nature of time has been significantly improved as the result of our discovery if the Big Bang, there are a number of important, logical inconsistencies which have not been addressed. Although one might think that our understanding of both Special Relativity and Time Dilation would have been improved over the years, this has not been the case, probably because it has been so difficult to conduct experiments addressing these topics; instead, the only changes to our understanding of them can only be based on logic. However, any article appearing in Wikipedia must be supported by published experimental reference(s); logical references are apparently not accepted. This requirement is a major element of Wikipedia policy and I both understand and agree that it has to be taken into consideration. I think what is needed is an exception to Wikipedia’s existing policy which would allow for the acceptance of proofs of logical references (following review of these proofs) for a limited group of topics. (I could generate a sample list of such topics if requested.) I hope a discussion of this subject can be initiated. Sui docuit (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "... what is needed is an exception to Wikipedia’s existing policy which would allow for the acceptance of proofs of logical references ...": that will not happen per wp:Verifiability and wp:FRINGE. And for that reason, a discussion of this subject is unlikely to be initiated. - DVdm (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

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 Gravitational time dilation. - DVdm (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]