Egbertus
|
Hoffman and Johnson edit
With respect to you recent addition of a reference by Hoffman & Johnson to both D'Alembert's_paradox and Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness, you may take a look at WP:COI to find out whether you have a conflict of interest on this matter. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no conflict of interest in putting up references to published articles on two closely related topics, d'Alembert' s paradox
and the Clay Navier-Stokes problem, which have been open for a very long time without any progress.
The interest of Hoffman-Johnson is to supply relevant information in order to stimulate discussion and open to progress,
and I believe this is also in the interest of Wikipedia.Egbertus (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The question can turned around: It is clear that the results by Hoffman-Johnson based on computation are not applauded by classically trained fluid dynamicists and pure mathematicians, who may have an interest in preventing these results to reach the scientific community, for example on wikipedia.Egbertus (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have no interest either way. It would be great if someone could give a rigorous proof to resolve either of these questions. But, in my opinion, while Hoffman and Johnson claim to have resolved several issues in their book, I do not see any proof. To focus discussions, if I give reactions, I will do that on the respective talk pages. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think everybody has some interest or bias, even if claiming to be completely neutral. The only way to handle this is by open discusssion, where different interests or viewpoints can meet, not by suppression of information. Even if you don't see any proof, maybe somebody else will, if only the article is not killed beforehand. What is remarkable is that the mathematicians behind the prize say nothing, not even that the arguments of the article are wrong. Maybe they are not so wrong? What is your main hang-up?Egbertus (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sure everybody has a bias, more or less and depending on the subject, which is unavoidable. But the aim of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view. The structure of Wikipedia is aiming at supporting that. I like to work on fluid dynamics articles and improve them. One of the issues there is that articles should be to the point and be well-balanced. If things are added which are in my opinion off-topic, or containing claims which are not backed up by their content, as in this case, I am opposed to giving them overdue weight. As well as that I oppose claims that are not backed up by the (content of) reliable references. That has nothing to do with suppression of information, as far as I am concerned. As I said before, I am not going to discuss here on the articles, but do that on the talk pages of those articles. If you think that Wikipedia is a forum to disseminate or discuss new research, see: WP:NOTFORUM. Crowsnest (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
3RRV-D'Alembert's paradox edit
Conflict of interest notice edit
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
- avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Egbertus. Your edits are being discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You are welcome to add your own comments there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
August 2008 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page d'Alembert's paradox do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Second law of thermodynamics. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
September 2008 edit
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to d'Alembert's paradox, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well potentially being penalized by search engines. -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Per the second discussion of your activities at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The attitude from WP is shocking, but it appears to be real. Of course I will not interact with WP any more. But I will write about my experiences on Knol. The HJ article now ranks 2nd on Google, and soon will rank 1st. I don´t need WP, but maybe WP needs experts like me. Best.Egbertus (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
December 2008 edit
Hello Egbertus. You may be able to avoid a block for edit-warring if you undo your last change to D'Alembert's paradox. This is by now a well-known issue. I doubt you will be able to provide us a list of other editors who have switched to supporting your version since the last time around. It is unfortunate that you still seem to have no interest in waiting to get consensus for your edits. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am preparing an indefinite block notice for other administrators to read. If you see any mistakes in the following draft, I would welcome correction:
- Spamming his own work to fluid mechanics pages. Repeatedly inserts the same material after it is reverted by others. This has gone on for months. Many people have tried to reason with him but without success. I am not aware that he found *any* other editor to support inclusion of his paper at D'Alembert's paradox.
- Other admins are welcome to modify this block, but please read all the previous discussions:
- You can still avoid a block if you will agree to stop adding work with which you are personally associated to any Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello EdJohnston: You don't seem to understand the role of scientific publishing in refereed scientific journals. Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics is the leading journal in fluid mechanics based on mathematics. The fact that the new resolution is published in this leading journal means that it is accepted by leading scientists. To suppress this information is against the most holy principle of science. It is irrelevant who puts up this information on WP. What is relevant is that it is published in a leading journal in the subject. Your main motivation to suppress the new resolution on WP before, was that it was not yet published. Now it is published and WP should lift the ban. What is now your motivation to suppress the new information? (1) That is is incorrect? (2) That is it is not published in a reliable source? Who are the persons who have tried to reason with Egbertus without success? WP editors like CS and Crowsnest and you? What have the arguments been in the reasoning? You know very well that WP by many is accussed of corrupted editorial work. Why do you want to add more material to this criticism? Is it clever and good for WP? The more bans you deliver on Egbertus, the sillier it looks from outside WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egbertus (talk • contribs) 09:42, December 17, 2008 (UTC)
Blocked edit
See the rationale in the above section, #December 2008. The editor was given a final chance to undo his self-promotional change to avoid a block, but would not do so. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)