PeR, I just want to thank you for your intervention. I'm especially grateful since you and I got off to a particularly bad start. You put my case very well, and I'm also grateful to Ned Scott for putting in another appeal on my behalf which has since been rejected. I don't intend to appeal again. But I'll take this as an opportunity to explain to you what my plan was, because I genuinely would like to see this centrifugal force issue resolved.

Fugal, at the moment, would appear to be in agreement with me, but that may not always be so. However, having said that, I have no intention in engaging in any further edit wars. I genuinely believed that I could work with Fugal to get the matter sorted out.

Fugal appears to be agreeing with me that centrifugal force is not something which is confined to the topic of rotating frames. I was going to point out to him however that his opponents may put it to him that a stationary object experiences centrifugal force as observed from a rotating frame of reference, and that in polar coordinates there would be no such centrifugal force acting. I wanted to see what his response would be. At any rate, I was going to state that I had a view on the matter and that there is literature on the matter supporting both my point of view and the point of view of my opponents, and that as such, a section on 'rotating frames' should avoid this controversy altogether.

I wasn't going to go back on the main page myself. I was merely going to suggest that 'rotating frames' and 'reactive centrifugal force' should form special sections in a single unified centrifugal force article. David Tombe 81.156.1.34 (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before this whole discussion started 'rotating frames' and 'reactive centrifugal force' were, in fact, sections in a single unified centrifugal force article. Now the article has spun off in a strange direction, but I have faith in the way that Wikipedia works, and I'm sure that it will end up good. Many good editors have expressed the opinion of reuniting the article. They are just not editing it frequently enough to make a difference right now.

On an unrelated note: When someone leaves you a message on your talk page, it is best to respond right below it, on your own talk page. They will have put the page on their watch list, and come back to read your response. That way it is easier to follow the conversation. This is especially important now that you're blocked, and only allowed to edit your own talk page. Admins will hold it against you if you edit other pages while blocked. --PeR (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeR, the problem is that I've now even been blocked from editing my own talk page. I genuinely believed that Antandrus and the Anome were bringing me back in again, but when the system allows other editors that have no knowledge of the history of the problem to make the decisions, then it becomes very difficult to take it all too seriously. I did take it seriously originally because I wanted to tidy up the centrifugal force article, having done alot of reserach into the topic. I was going to have one last attempt at highlighting the areas of disagreement in a clear and rational fashion without actually going on the main article, but Sandstein and Jayron32, who know nothing about the history of the original dispute, have been allowed to decide otherwise. David Tombe 81.156.4.167 (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you can't edit User_talk:David_Tombe? It looks to me like it's not protected anymore. Don't underestimate the amount of research admins do before deciding on an unblock request. You can also assume that a lot of them also read the AN/I discussions concerning you when they took place, even if they did not participate. I think your best strategy will be to lay low for a while, then make another unblock request, pledging to follow all Wikipedia policies, including those concerning block evasion and sock-puppets, and to assume good faith concerning your fellow Wikipedians from now on. --PeR (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PeR, I've just checked again. Although the page is unprotected, I can't edit on it. The block notice comes up. Blocked indefinitely by Mr. Z-Man. Ironically, I can still edit it if I don't log in, but I don't intend to do that. And yes, I had intended to lie low as I had more or less finished making my point, but then I wanted back into the discussion again while Fugal was still active. He might have disappeared when the block would have expired at the end of October. There's a crucial point which I want to discuss with him. It concerns matching the terms in polar coordinates with the terms in the rotating frame transformation equations. I wanted to point out to him, that although I support his position on that matter, that it is not all cut and dried because the Coriolis force is strictly tangential in polar coordinates, whereas his opponents believe that it can be in any direction in the rotating frame transformation equations. That matter is the key to the entire edit conflict and it will have to be addressed in a rational manner. Previously it was addressed in a state of conflict and everybody dug in. I was outnumbered, and I believe that I was unfairly prejudiced in that respect. I think we're past that stage now. The facts need to be put into the open and I've already made it clear to the administrators that I don't intend to edit the main article anymore. With Fugal now active, there was a hope that it could all have been resolved peacefully within a few weeks. But unfortunately Fugal is now left battling alone and banging his head against the wall in vain. He's just repeating the same arguments over and over again, like I was previously. Finally, I can't understand Antandrus. He seemed like a very reasonable administrator. When Wolfkeeper complained that I had been on the discussion page (in order to answer Brews's inuendo that Fugal was alone), Antandrus sent me a message which indicated that he believed that I was genuine and that terms of re-entry could be negotiated. He paved the way for a re-entry but when it was sabotaged by Sandstein and Jayron32, he disappeared. Since I am not under a community ban, and since I have not been subject to any decision by the arbitration committee, there is no reason why Antandrus himself simply couldn't have done the unblock. What would have been the problem? If I had let him down and instantly gone unto the main article, the inevitable consequence would have been a re-block with me knowing that I had lost all hope forever of being re-admitted. So I doubt if he would have been taking much of a risk. Unfortunately, it does rather seem that alot of these admins such as Sandstein and Jayron32, and the others that declined the unblock request before, simply enjoy the power of blocking people, and have themselves totally defied the rules in the respect that blocks are not designed to punish but rather to prevent damage. David Tombe 86.150.86.124 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeR. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeR. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeR. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PeR. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]