Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. However, please familurise yourself with our core policies before continueing. You may find the following link helpful Help:Contents. Have a nice day. Jefffire 13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'familiarise'

'continuing'

You don't set a very good example, do you?

I type fast, and have a lot to do. Jefffire 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease from inserting unverified information into the article Global Warming. If you wish to insert these comments then please Verify them from a Reliable Souce, as per WP:V and WP:RS. We also frown upon Edit Warring and ou are now in violation of the Three revert rule WP:3rr. Please take a breather and take some time you read our policies before continueing. Jefffire 13:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing due to Wikipedia:3RR violation. Vsmith 15:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

Censorship by the pro-AGW establishment!

Ed

Reviewed, adequately warned about WP:3RR, no unblock. --pgk^(talk) 16:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is unreasonable - I knew nothing about this blocking process, until it happened. I thought you were supposed to discuss it with me? I'm perfectly happy to cooperate with the system, and I'm waiting to repost my material complete with supporting references.

You were warned of the policy, not to mention it should be self evident that edit warring is not a constructive way of resolving a dispute, it should also be self evident of how disruptive it is to others not involved in the war who wish to read and/or contribute to an article. Your comment declaring "censorship" doesn't leave a good impression as to your intentions. --pgk^(talk) 15:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your post to the 3RR noticeboard because that board is specifically for clear violations of the WP:3RR rule. That isn't what you have; that's why you couldn't make any sense of the format. You need to discuss your issue at Talk:Time travel -- I see that you're trying to do so, and that's good; please don't take the matter elsewhere unless you are convinced that other editors are misbehaving in a way that makes it impossible to resolve the problem. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, you are correct that all inertial frames are equivalent, but you were incorrect to say that "the Special Theory of Relativiy allows no preference for any frame of reference over any other, from the viewpoint of the traveller the reverse would seem to happen, with time processes being slowed on the Earth." This is true if the traveler continues to move away from the Earth inertially forever, but if the traveler turns around and returns to Earth, he must move non-inertially and the symmetry is broken, this is a very well-known issue in special relativity called the twin paradox (also see this page which has a very in-depth discussion, or the discussions in this book and this one if you'd like some published references). And the answer in this scenario is that the traveler/twin who turns around (moves non-inertially) will have aged less upon reuniting with the inertial twin, and that all inertial frames agree on this prediction, so your comment "it seems probable that the apparent paradoxical contradictions introduced would be cancelled out on return, through the processes of acceleration and deceleration" seems to be incorrect or at least misleading (depends on what you mean by 'apparent paradoxical contradictions', but it sounds like you're saying all the differential aging is 'cancelled out' so the two would have aged the same amount when they reunite--that would definitely be an incorrect conclusion according to special relativity). Hypnosifl (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DVdm. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Twin paradox seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Note: referring to this anon edit and this user comment. Please make sure not to edit in logged out mode. And sorry for having hit the wrong button. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]