User talk:Florian N

Welcome!

Hello, Florian N, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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!

I see that your edits to Expanding Earth are being reverted. Please check the history of the article, and read the comments made by the editors who reverted you or made other changes (in the history page, click on "prev" to see what changes were made in every edit). Note that not all your edits were reverted; some changes were integrated, and other people made additional changes along the way.

In particular, one of the editors said "WP:OR, try finding more unbiased and less outdated references."

I have not looked at your edits myself, but I can tell you that James Maxlow's PhD thesis does not count in Wikipedia as a reliable source. At most, it's a primary source for the thoughts of one of the proponents of the theory. It was not published on a peer-reviewed journal or on a scholar book publisher, and I doubt that other people have cited it in journals.

For your information, a PhD thesis is a peer-reviewed works.Florian N (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

From our guide on reliable sources Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your sources for Tethys were probably outdated. Recent books for Tethys ocean support its existence. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You have to read these sources to verify that they are not outdated. I doubt that the editor who made the comments read them. Florian N (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't. I only need to see that they decades old, and that current sources say something very different. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not from the same material. Ignoring annoying paleontological and geological data is plaguing Earth-sciences and led to this mess.Florian N (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but some of those recent books look like summaries of available evidence. Either the old evidence was weak, or it was superceded by new evidence. Wikipedia is not the place to set the record straight and "fix" the field of Earth sciences. Wikipedia reflects the current consensus on the field. If you think that the current consensus on the field is not correct, this is not the place to do it. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

By reading the old references and the most recent ones, it appears that these problems were not solved and simply put aside (waiting for better time). That's what we usually do in Science. If we can't find a solution for a specific problem, we forget it to spend time on problems that we can solve in the framework of the theories we knows. But major discoveries are always found by the lucky one who have time to spend on these difficult issues... Now, it is certainly not about fixing Earth Sciences but about fixing a simple wikipedia article that is not reflecting a balanced view of the knowledge we have regarding this particular theory. I spent a lot of years to study it. I read more than 1000 peer-review papers on this theory and on the latest plate tectonics developments. So I accumulated a large knowledge, a tiny bit of which could have been shared on this wikipedia article. But since you suggest that this knowledge should be restricted among specialists, then let's be it. And let's continue to misinformed the readers and satisfy your own beliefs. Florian N (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

Your recent edit to expanding Earth here was rather misleading as most of that edit was a massive revert to your previous version. Quite simply, don't do that. Vsmith (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What must not be done is a massive reversion of the multiple edits I made without valid arguments for each edits. Florian N (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Expanding Earth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's quite an interesting comment since Fama Clamosa started this war and Fama Clamosa did not use the talk page at my invitation to solve the dispute. Florian N (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions on Expanding Earth

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 and fringe science. 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.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Enric Naval (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)