Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 61:
Line 61: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Logical Flaws in E=mc² (view source)
Revision as of 22:29, June 16, 2015
, 22:29, June 16, 2015→Silencing the opposition - not a smart move: new section
Even a "true formula" not necessarily leads to "anything of value". "Not leading to anything of value" therefore doesn't say anything about "the correctness of the formula". --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:01, 15 June 2015 (EDT)
Even a "true formula" not necessarily leads to "anything of value". "Not leading to anything of value" therefore doesn't say anything about "the correctness of the formula". --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:01, 15 June 2015 (EDT)
== Silencing the opposition - not a smart move ==
Now, two of the opponents ([[User:DannyC]] and [[User:BradSmythe]]) of the views of [[User:Aschlafly]] have been blocked by [[User:VargasMilan]]. While the block of [[User:DannyC]] may be justifiable, [[User:BradSmythe]]'s block reason ''"(90/10 rule: excess of talk rather than edits to substantive entries)"'' doesn't fit his edit history! That is very problematic:
*unfortunately (and perhaps unwillingly) [[User:VargasMilan]] creates the impression that [[User:Aschlafly]] needs this kind of assistance and maybe even welcomes his opponents to be shut up when debating them. This is emphasized by his remark above: "''Too bad you can't explain what you think that means—you violated the 90/10 contribution/talk ratio rule. If you had only made a contribution to the articles....''"
*blocking a new user for breaking the 90/10 rule for '''two years''' seems excessive. As the stated block reason is wrong, ulterior motives may have played their part.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:29, 16 June 2015 (EDT)