Talk:General relativity/Archive 9

message: On user talk:SteakNShake, this editor wrote: 
: These changes will stand, come hell or high water, because I have the only sources on the table so far and no others appear to be forthcoming.
This article will soon be unprotected (or so I hope), and this is evidence that the disagreement is unresolable, as there are plenty of sources supporting the article in its current state in the article itself, but apparently SteakNShake feels that their support of the accepted viewpoint only impeaches them as reliable sources.
I suggest that our first line of defense is to soon make a case to an admin that SteakNShake is disruptive and get in blocked for that reason (assuming that SteakNShake continues to attempt to impose his POV on the article).  In the meantime, I suggest that a Request for arbitration is in order.  Any comments? takers? --EMS | Talk 02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at his contributions, I think there isnt any uncivil remarks, also WP:BITE is worth reading. I would recommend that you ask for page protection to stop the revert waring while the issue is discussed. Gnangarra 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a clear case of Cronholm144 trying to ban people who disagree with his beliefs. SteakNShake 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow up protected the article and advised of bite, agf, civil, and 3r Gnangarra 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a big fan of WP:BITE, but in this case it seems to be the newcomer doing the biting. Although too early to make a judgement, this is so far a single purpose account, that purpose being WP:POV-pushing at General relativity, so far in a very disruptive fashion. In terms of WP:CIVIL, although I would not say this is a serious case of taunting, it heads in that direction. I would like to assume good faith, but the description of one form of trolling at WP:UNCIVIL as attempting to "push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves" does resonate somewhat in this instance. So I'm not convinced protecting the article is the best way forward here. Geometry guy 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim above that I am "pushing POV" is bald and without merit. What I am pushing is a necessary change to this one article that seems to be guarded by some self-appointed experts who refuse to allow any changes at all. SteakNShake 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a note, his username could be summarily blocked as per WP:U... that would be dumping a major amount of gas on the fire, but I thought I'd point that out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SteakNShake 

message: I copy the following from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Taken from WP:AIV. JRSpriggs 06:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at his contributions, I think there isnt any uncivil remarks, also WP:BITE is worth reading. I would recommend that you ask for page protection to stop the revert waring while the issue is discussed. Gnangarra 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a clear case of Cronholm144 trying to ban people who disagree with his beliefs. SteakNShake 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow up protected the article and advised of bite, agf, civil, and 3r Gnangarra 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a big fan of WP:BITE, but in this case it seems to be the newcomer doing the biting. Although too early to make a judgement, this is so far a single purpose account, that purpose being WP:POV-pushing at General relativity, so far in a very disruptive fashion. In terms of WP:CIVIL, although I would not say this is a serious case of taunting, it heads in that direction. I would like to assume good faith, but the description of one form of trolling at WP:UNCIVIL as attempting to "push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves" does resonate somewhat in this instance. So I'm not convinced protecting the article is the best way forward here. Geometry guy 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim above that I am "pushing POV" is bald and without merit. What I am pushing is a necessary change to this one article that seems to be guarded by some self-appointed experts who refuse to allow any changes at all. SteakNShake 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a note, his username could be summarily blocked as per WP:U... that would be dumping a major amount of gas on the fire, but I thought I'd point that out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This dispute mentioned at WP:ANI

message: I have removed the protection for this article, the above clearly shows that consensus is for the changes not to occur. I also direct editors including SnS(or who the new name will be) to WP:NOT WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK#Disruption. Gnangarra 02:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: You seem to be concerned about the ten components of the PDE used in the model. Can you clarify for me why coordinate invariance does not address these concerns? Thanks, Geometry guy 19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The issue is the username, which violates WP:USERNAME.  So "SteakNShake" is gone, but the person can and probably will choose a new user name and be back. --EMS | Talk 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SteakNShake is permablocked. 

message: http://www.alberteinstein.info/db/ViewImage.do?DocumentID=25&Page=1
134.91.200.139 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuscript 

message: This section claims that a ping-pong ball fired "at just the right speed" will orbit the bowling ball in the trampoline. I don't think this is correct, and the analogy with planets is certainly not correct. A planet will orbit the sun at any speed below the escape velocity; the orbit will be elliptical, or in the extreme case, a straight line through the sun (which is still technically an orbit). Similarly, a ping-pong ball fired at the bowling ball will orbit (possibly elliptically) for any (radial?) speed below a threshold. Of course, this doesn't really work if the ping-pong ball hits the bowling ball. -David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.102.79 (talk • contribs) 
:You are taking that paragraph too seriously. Remember it says "...can be viewed intuitively...". It is not an exact analogy. JRSpriggs 09:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with David here. Even if the analogy should be taken to be viewed intuitively, then the phrase "at just the right speed" is wrong, and I don't think we should allow a mistake in the description of an analogy. I would replace the phrase with "at some suitable combination of direction and speed". Any objections? DVdm 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. Just try not to turn it into an essay that requires us to examine the similarities and differences between gravity bending space-time and a bowling ball bending a trampoline. JRSpriggs 10:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding section "Spacetime as curved Lorentzian manifold"