User talk:KraMuc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Anti-relativity 2 General welcome 3 Please respect your fellow editors 4 Explanation of Wikipedia, important rules, etc. 5 11:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 6 Sockpuppetry case 7 Anti-relativity has been deleted after AfD 7.1 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 8 Block 9 DESY's Gènio Secondo 10 Anti-relativity 11 The article 'Anti-relativity' has been deleted, but there has been an invitation to write a new article 'Anti-relativity' 12 Modern Galilean Relativity 13 Cease personal attacks on other users 14 Step back and decide what you want 15 Wikipedia:Harassment 16 Reversion 17 KraMuc is back... 18 Moved from my page of notes 18.1 KraMuc and anti-Semitism

[edit] Anti-relativity

I understand you have limited time/capability to edit, but I think it would help tremendously if you would familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is a secondary source—a fact that no editor can change—so if you put in material that appears to be your own analysis it will be removed. You can always make a case that something is not original research on the article talk page. -- SCZenz 20:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Salve, Mr. Zens. I have myself worked a long time ago as a professional editor of a technical journal in Berlin (for one year). Since I am a retired physicist, I do have also the time. But I certainly shall not spend my time if I see that nothing can come out, because others know everything better. Then you would have to do your work alone. In the article no new research work is presented, but everything reported is already known and has been published in journals like the ones mentioned at the beginning of the article, or in philosophical journals like 'Existentia'.

Thank you also for your official 'Welcome to Wikipedia', but I read all the verbal injuries on the page for articles proposed for deletion. I had now already several time the impression that I am not dealing with mature people. I myself, if I would be an administrator of Wikipedia, would cancel from the very beginning any comment as invalid, which contains verbal injuries of this kind.

Mr. Jacobi had contacted me on the talk page for the German version of the article. He felt "paralyzed" and wanted me to generate an article which is still better than the English version 'Anti-relativity'. I explained to him that this easily could be done, because if one would begin from zero, then a struchture could first be generated where the information is ordered in a suitable manner. I recommended to him to use the list of contents of the book of Walter Theimer in order to generate some initial structure.

There might be a misunderstanding. Perhaps Mr. Jabobi would like to take up my recommendation. Then, in fact, it would first be necessary to delete the German version altogether in order to begin from zero. If this is what he means, I don't object at all. I also do not object at all, if he re-arranges in the German version of the article all the information gathered so far in the English version.

But if his idea should be to first destroy the English version of it too, so that later on he can show off with a nice German article which contains all the information he found in the English version then I would object against this, also from the following reason: To the German version which Mr. Jacobi controls the public had no access. Therefore, it would have been impossible that all this information, which is now available in the English version, had compiled there. I have nothing against it, if he now takes advantage of the tolerance and freedom of speech that had been guaranteed hitherto in the English version, but I cannot see why the wrong impression shall be received by the public, that all that information had been collected in the German version because free access had been given to it. Quite the contrary is true: Mr. Jacobi has reserved for the German page for himself a monopol of opinion, and nobody can edit there anything because he is misusing the page for purposes of propaganda.

For what purpose does he now interfere with the English version of the article 'Anti-relativity'. He can start with re-editing the German version and can inegrate all the information found in the English version. What does he want more.

Why does he want to destroy the English artice 'Anti.relativity'.

Since I had not started from zero, but had to integrate all information available before my interference, the English version might later on reauire a different structure, i.e., it might be necessary to re-write the whole article again. But this should be done after I have added all the information which I think should be presented there.

Re-writing the article at the moment would imply that I would have to do the same work once more. You would have to do this without me, bcause I have better things to do than to play here foolish around. I shall now go to the other questions, if they are not already answered by this statement.KraMuc 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

But I have to object against destroying the English article 'Anti-realtivity'

[edit] General welcome

I just realize you were never welcomed to Wikipedia, so... welcome! Here's a generic greeting with general info:

Welcome!

Hello, KraMuc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- SCZenz 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please respect your fellow editors

It doesn't help your case to become more aggressive. Please see the core policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks, also compare Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

It seems to me you misunderstood the workings of Wikipedia. But now you are informed, that it is not the case that articles are to be written from the Sympathetic Point of View and opponents don't have a say.

Pjacobi 09:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, but why don't you act like this in practice? Why do you want to destroy by all means now any argument aginst the SRT nonsense? In particular, why do you now propose the article for deletion, after you first asked for my cooperation concerning the German version of it?KraMuc 17:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of Wikipedia, important rules, etc.

Hi KraMuc,

If it is hard for you to read this message, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Translators available or Category:User languages to find a person who speaks your native language and ask for help. (I mention this because you have said English is not your native language, and that this was causing you difficulties, and I do not want to create problems because of miscommunication.)

I am indeed an administrator on Wikipedia. I am accountable for my actions as an administrator, of course, and you are more than welcome to bring my actions to the attention of other administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. However, being an administrator does not grant me any special rights in editing articles, as per WP:ADMIN, and indeed I have not done anything on the Anti-relativity page that an ordinary editor cannot do.

I think you misunderstand Wikipedia rather substantially, and I again urge you to read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia is not a free spech site, but rather an encyclopedia owned and run by the m:WikiMedia Foundation, and it has rules governing editing that are designed to improve the encyclopedia; editors are responsible for following these rules, or they can sometimes be blocked. Note well that among these rules is that anyone may edit any page and may mercilessly edit others' contributions; however, users may not be rude to each other.

Most importantly, however, you must not attempt to influence editing by urging real-life consequences for other editors; this is seen as intimidation, and we have specific policies against making legal threats or threatening to harass other users in person; both of these offenses can result in a permanent block as highly disruptive to the ability of users to edit. I have no interest in taking any action with regard to your comments already, nor would I do it myself since I'm involved, but you do need to know that your behavior has been inconsistent with the rules of this website.

Please reply on User talk:SCZenz if you have any questions. Thanks, SCZenz 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Salve, Mr. Zens. When I addressed Wikipedia half an hour ago, I had been in an Internet Café, where a coin has to be put into a machine, and then time run out. I am now in a different place. You react now suddenly with a considerably sensitiveness: this is just what I wanted to achieve. You don't find it "rude" if you insert into a piece of text a sentence like: "I, Zens, tell you how you present yourself in public."? Well, if this should still be the case, then I perhaps should try to make you even more sensible as you at present already are. It is clear to me that Wikipedia has its own rules which must be obeyed. But Wikipedia as an organization does not exists outside of society, so that it is also bound to civil law. If supervisors or administrators of Wikipedia act against rules and laws made by governments for media, then the threat with legal action seems to be justified.

I think also that you are mixing up something. On the one hand, you say that Wikipedia is "not a free speech site". One the other hand, you argue that "anyone may edit any page". What would you say if I would interfere in the same manner, as you did, with the article 'Relativity'? I could also say to you: "This is not a free speech site" and, furthermore: "Anyone may edit any page".

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding on your side, what the word "editing" implies. An editor also can write article, certainly, but in general the editor is not the author. You seem to think that you are both, author and editor, when I write contributions. That's the wrong professional attitude.

What I an trying to do is to provide some insight into what Charles Kittel called the 'Scholar Sub-cultur' of SRT. I tried to do it in a manner, that it has a sensational touch, so that Wikipedia perhaps even may use this for some booklet or contribution to a booklet. I think, it would sell. Everything else has already been said hundred times, so that it become boring already and nobody wants to here it anymore. This is all what I tried to do.

Not all, what I want to achieve. My primary goal is, of course, to draw attention to some inconsistencies of SRT, which people had not yet been aware of.

But I am talking here too much. In the afternoon I played tennis agaist a Pete Sampras type of tennis roboter so that I am tired. I suggest you put the article back so that I can proceed working on it.KraMuc 16:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)KraMuc 08:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/KraMuc for evidence. Please, make sure you make yourself familliar with notes for the suspect before editing evidence page. --Pjacobi 11:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As I explained already in my message to Mr. Zens, I am fairly tired in the moment, so that now I am not really interested in a kind of competition where the aim is to find the better joke. Hovever, Mr. Jacobi's linguistic savoirfaire stresses certain qualities.

I am also not really interested in a lengthy discussion with Mr. Jacobi, because I am used to the kind of messages he hides in his article since a long time (I do not mean his articles). I once met a Jewish writer at a place in Munich, where second-hand things are sold once a year, the so-called 'Auer Dult'. I met him at a book shop. We exchanged phone numbers, and then he rung me up. It was the longest phone call of my life. It started at about 10 a.m. and lasted until about 3. p.m. I have almost forgotten everythinh of what was told, but I remember that it came to the concentration camp Dachau, a place near Munich. There some years ago a gas chamber has been installed, which never had existed in Dachau during World War II. I asked him why this has been done. His answer: Well, the Bavarians certainly had intended to install a gas chamber there, and the only reason why they have not done it was, that they were too silly ("zu blöd") to do that.

With his hidden messages Mr Jacobi does not do himself a great favour. One example. I went to the hair dresser. He had renovated his shop. One of his friends, an architecr had helped him. The air dresser told me, that his friend, the architect, had ask him - meant as a joke - the following question: "Why don't you install in your place here a special chair for Jews?" The hair dresser asked back: "For Jews? How should that chair then look like". An the answer was: "On the left hand side of the chair a gas cylinder and on the right hand side another one".

This kind of jokes are spontaneously triggered off by persons like Mr. Jacobi when he creates his nonsense. Afterward then the complaint comes: "That's anti-Semitism".

I think Mr. Jacobi mixes something up. He mixes up the capability of mental concentration with intelligence. This is not entirely the same. I myself, a German, intend to "undermine" SRT so to soeak solely with my phantasy. If Mr. Jacobi thinks, he is the more intelligent person, then he should perhaps concentrate strongly and try to find out something against my phantasy. All what came into his mind hinthert is that he protects now the Germna article against "vandalism" by interrupting all access to the article, which comes from Internet Cafés. Is this an intelligent measure? I don't think so.

Nevertheless, Mr Jacobi should perhaps use some of his intelligence in order to restore the article. The board he wants me to contact will certainly also listen to him.

As far as his project is concerned, I would separate the article into two different articles: 'Antirelativismus' and 'Anti-Relativisten' or the like. But I told him already before, and it seems that he aready followed my advice. Since Mr. Jacobi seems to suffer from 'excessive selectedness' I will probably be difficult to stop him from establishing a monopol of opinion supervised by his lodge brothers. I personally would not object, if the article 'Relativismus (philosophical)' is left to him as a play ground of this kind, so that he may there celebrate his "sockpuppetry". The other article, which is presently misused by Mr. Jacobi in order to put his own ethnic group into a more advantageous light and to hide in it a small portion of Anti-KraMucKraMuc 08:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-relativity has been deleted after AfD

I'm moving your comment from Talk:Anti-relativity here:

Complaint about Removal of Former Article 'Anti-Relativity' Wikipedia, I can understand that because of my complaint on manipulation of edit summary records compiled under 'history', the function 'history' is not accessible at the moment. What worries me more, is, that apparently the version modified considerably by me has already been put into a safe - much earlier than I would recommend to do. Today, I came here in order to make a modification. I had written something like: "Einstein was a quite different type". The word "type" I had used in the sense of 'character'. I would be glad, if a supervisor of Wikipedia would correct the sentence for me. I also would be glad, if the section 'Creditability of the Scribes' would be re-inserted. I am aware that this section hurts - but hundret years SRT is enough. Please note that the story told in that section is highly original, for seceral reasons: i) To the best of my knowledge, it has never been told in this way before. ii) One or two pieces of the puzzle might be in the memory of the German public, but not all three (I have seen Freiherr von Richthofen presenting the Trick in Bavarian Television, but DESY is located near Hamburg, far in the north of Germany.) iii) Up to know I was used solely to 'Wikipedia ghosts' moving cursors across the screen, but starnge things happened in betweenKraMuc 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The talk page of a deleted article is not the right place for such a complaint. You may consider to complain at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Pjacobi 15:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Provided Mr. Jacobi refers to the German version of the article and wants to re-write it from zero I have no objection whatsoever.

But this measure should not imply that the English version is detroyed too.

As far as the English version 'Anti-relativity' is concerned, I suggest that it should be re-installed so that I have access to it again.

Perhaps Wikipedia should stress once more in the label at the beginning that the article is under work and should not yet be regarded as a final version suitable for Wikipedia.KraMuc 11:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Any admin can give you a copy of a deleted article into your so called "user space" (a room for drafts which aren't articles), if he is convinced that you don't abuse this courtesy. I for myself wouldn't do this, giving your past behaviour (perhaps this is only a question of learning how Wikipedia does work). But you can ask at Wikipedia:Deletion review or by contact any other admin of your choice. --Pjacobi 12:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it an extremely bad behaviou, Mr. Jacobi, that you delete here a lengthy message which was not adressed to you but rather to the user E4mmacro.KraMuc 17:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As can bee seen in the edit history of this talk page, I didn't delete anything. Perhaps you've got an "edit conflict" warning? See Help:Edit conflict for this problem? --Pjacobi 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure, but I could imagine that this page is watched also by other authorities. Administrators exaggerating with chicanerie should perhaps consider this in order to avoid that they do harm to themselves. My message to user E4mmacro did not vanish because of an editing conflict, but rather during 'preview' phases, where no editing conflict could occur. Somebody deleted my text. This had happened before.

I shall now proceed with re-formulating the text at the end.KraMuc 12:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving again your comments from Talk:Anti-relativity here:

Somebody has added "citation needed" to the discussion of Doppler's original paper "On the coloured light of the binary stars ...". The paper is reprinted in Lorentz, H. A. (ed.) (1907), Christian Doppler - Abhandlungen , Engelmann, Leipzig (Ostwalds Klassiker der exakten Wissenschaften 161) KraMuc84.152.252.106 16:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Sie haben leider in der Person des Administrators 'pjacobi' einen Bock zum Gärtner gemacht. Der Mann behindert mich auf übelste Weise. Er hat sich jetzt den Spaß erlaubt, mich von der Editing PAGE des englischen Artikels 'Anti-relativity', den ich in den letzten Wochen maßgeblich mitgestaltet habe, zu "verbannen". Der Mann, den er da vorschiebt, ist ein kroatischer Student der Computer-Wissenschaften, der von dem Thema kaum eine Ahnung haben kann. Ich bitte Sie dringenst, die kriminellen Handlungen von 'pjabobi' zu unterbinden. Er hat u.a. auch Texte vernichtet sowie eine Botschaft für den User 'E4mmacro', einen australischen Dozenten. Solche Handlungen sind gesetzwidrig, also kriminell. KraMuc.84.152.252.106 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To these accusations I would like to add that also my 'edit summaries' have been manipulated by administrators.KraMuc 17:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/KraMuc, and you are therefore blocked for period of one week. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.

I have already several times made strange observations concerning MANIPULATION by administrators. A new one is that the list of reasons for deletion has now been manipulated, probably by the philosophical Finsterling pjacobi (who has closed down the German article and misuses the PAGE for a kind of zionistic propaganda and anti-German intellectual actionism): All arguments speaking in favour of the article have been deleted by purpose in oder to create the impression that exclusively everybody wants the article to be removed.

This, however, is by no means the case. I inspected a few days ago the page compiling the arguments and contributed myself an argument. It has been deleted in the meantime.

I get more and more interested in pjacobi, and I should point out that this gentleman is confronted with the wrong person. It is bad luck, I know, but it is in fact the case, and it will have consequences.

It is of paramount importance, Mr. Jacobi, to be honest. You seem to have greater difficulties with this requirement.

I would also like to propose, that the people with the big mouth, who voted in favour of deletion, should take up the arguments and enter into a serious discussion. People, who call others "cranks" etc. refer - according to the experience which I have made in life - in most cases to their own mental state.

If among those with the big mouth there should be one who has contact to persons who are taken serious in Physics Departments of Universities, then he should perhaps use this contact in order to inform himself about the "nonsense" which I have been writing in the article.KraMuc 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I must confess that for quite a wile I had the impression that in the case of 'pjacobi' I had been confronted with a student with some interest in natural philosophy who had been given the chance to act as an administrator. I was quite surprised when I now discovered that this pseudonym is used by the theoretical physicist Dr. Peter Jay Salzman. I would like to be a mouse in a lecture room where Dr. Salzmann explains himself to students asking him questions about his behaviour here.KraMuc 16:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DESY's Gènio Secondo

A user who had voted delete suspects that I am charging DESY personnel with having murdered DESY's Gènio Secondo. In the newspaper, where many years ago I had seen the message that the man had been found shot dead in Brussels, no further information had been given. Probably, DESY's Personnel Department knows more about the dead of the man. Obviously, by playing the genius, he had put a tremendeous pressure on himself. I guess that he killed himself. I recall that in his interviews apologetic messages could be found, such as: "My brain swims in alcohol". I do charge nobody with anything.KraMuc 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-relativity

This page was deleted through AfD by the consensus of the community. Please stop trying to recreate it. --Philosophus ^T 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I am not trying to recreate the article "Anti-relativity", but I am writing now an entirely different article which fulfills the criterion of neutrality etc. On the page on which the deleted article had existed one can find a written invitation to create a new article. In order to emphasize that I am not copying the old, deleted article I have given the novel article the title "Galilean Relativity".

What attitude is this, anyway, to try to suppress the opinion of others in this rude and irresponsible manner?

I had now been contacted by the administrator pjacobi on the talk page of user Harald88. I have interpreted his message such that there is no objection against me writing a new article.

If a certain article has been deleted because of violations against the neutrality requirements etc. then this can hardly mean that the theme Galilean relativity shall be banned altogether! This is what Philosophus would like, isn't it, Philosophus?

If I should be wrong in this respect, then the administrators should let me know. As matter of fact, in that case I would not supply further contributions.

I stress omce more that I am not really interested to participate in childish and immature games of this kind.KraMuc 18:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article 'Anti-relativity' has been deleted, but there has been an invitation to write a new article 'Anti-relativity'

Wikipedia, following your written invitation to write a new article 'Anti-relativity' I started today writing text again. As soon as I started I was confronted with Vandalism again. There are persons, like the user Philosophus, who try everything in order to avoid that an article on modern Galilean Relativity is generated.

Could Wikipedia please make its mind up and clarify whether or not it wants an article of this kind (considering that there exist journals like Galilean Electrodynamics)?

If Wikipedia wants an article 'Galilean Relativity', could Wikipedia then please ensure that the generation of the article is not continuously hampered and interrupted by irresponsible pseudo-academic vandals who call themselves Philosophus and the like?

Wikipedia, could you please give a clear answer?KraMuc 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A good start would be to not create the article with Anti-relativity as the title. Try "Galilean relativity (pseudoscience)", or maybe "Modern Galilean relativity". --Philosophus ^T 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Galilean Relativity

Your rewritten article is now at Modern Galilean relativity per Philosophus's suggestion. Please do not try to recreate an article at Anti-relativity again. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By the by, I thought I should warn you that there's a lot of touchy users out there, and it's easier to work with them if you don't call them things like vandal left and right. Nicely pointing out that the recreated content was significantly different would have sufficed. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Salve, Laurascudder. Could you please change the spelling of 'Modern Galilean relativity' into Modern Galilean Relativity? I am somewhat in a hurry because in two weeks time I leave for Italy and I shall not return before the second half of August. I shall try to finish the article before I leave. The current interruptions are annoying.KraMuc 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As for now I'd consider the new article start sufficently encyclopedic in style, with one content issue: Is Ritz "modern" enough for this article? Shouldn't the Ritz part go to emission theory which needs some cleanup anyway? --Pjacobi 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to embark on the Ritz theory much further. This was merely meant to provide some overview. Anything else is left to the reference: J.P. Wesley, "Ritz is Wrong". I probably shall acommodate some of the references in footnotes, so that they will no longer be listed up in the reference list. I shall decide on this in a later phase, when the citations are more complete.KraMuc 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cease personal attacks on other users

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. If you do not understand how your actions are in violation of the rules, please leave a note on my talk page requesting help. -- SCZenz 12:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for name calling, specifically calling Philosophus a "cyber clown". You were warned on many occasions about this; regardless of your disagreements with other users, you must be civil. -- SCZenz 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You may do that if you want to and I suggest that you add some more blocking hours because he actually is a cyber clown, like yourself: There do not exist many MGRs but only one single MGR which with the exception of a few people at the University of Munich and at some other places hitherto nobody knows. So, how can you, grandfather Zens and cyper clown Philosophus say that it had all the time been ignored? Are you both not quite right in your heads? By the way, is in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance, written that these four journals are "looked at with suspicion"? I must say to you, Zens, that you are an entirely immature boy who even seems not to be aware of the legal relevance of writing about other journals in this degrading style. Who do you think you are? For any of these journals an editorial staff of some dozens of scientists and physics teachers works, and great Zens and Jcobinus Magnus look al all these persons with suspicion!

I think the first thing you should do here is that you both first formally apologize to the editors-in-chief of these four journals for your bad behaviour, before they perhaps initiate legal measures agsinst you. Do these journals write about Wikipedia in the same style?

If you don't do this then fuck off for all future and do not bother me any more with your silly and idiotic questions. Everything clear, you fools? KraMuc, 22 June 2006.--KraMuc 19:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If this was test, how fast the next block will come, it was successfull. I block you for repeated violating of WP:NPA for 24h. --Pjacobi 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Step back and decide what you want

Hi KraMuc. I considered letting another admin leave you this note, but I have decided that if you are unable to read my words and react rationally to them then this message is a lost cause anyway. I ask you to think about what I am writing carefully; please note that I have added internal links to polices that it is crucial for you to understand to react appropriately, and I urge you to read them and ask questions about them if you are not already familiar with them.

It is up to you whether you wish to keep writing on Wikipedia. It is also up to Wikipedia whether you can keep writing here; within our rules, you can be banned permanently from editing for egregious and continual violations of policy. I will explain below the reasons this might happen, but let me first tell you briefly how it will occur if your behavior continues. I have the technical ability, as an administrator, to indefinitely block your account; if I do this, I will inform all other administrators that I have done so, and if there is no disagreement then you (not just your current account) will be permenantly banned from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy for more details.

The reasons that I would do this include the following:

1. Your continued personal attacks on other users, in violation of the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Simple name-calling is very easy to avoid, but you have chosen to continue despite repeated requests.
2. You have repeatedly lashed out at anyone and everyone who changes your edits, creating a hostile environment for the collaborative work that is central to the Wikipedia project. This violates the policy found at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
3. You have edited combatively and in violation of the policy Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, at times using sockpuppets abusively to do so.
4. You do not follow the policy Wikipedia:No original research, despite repeated explanations, and insist on adding information for which you cannot or will not provide reliable sources.
5. You do not follow the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; you have insisted on making arguments in articles rather than recounting facts from sources and the views of others in a neutral tone.
6. You have attempted to intimidate other users by discussing possible legal action, albeit by 3rd-parties, putting you on the border of violating the letter of (and certainly violating the spirit of) the policy Wikipedia:No legal threats. Further in the past, you made other efforts to intimidate users by threatening real-life harassment; although I chose not to publicize these incidents because I thought you might be ignorant of policy at the time, they will not reflect well on any case for leniency if any further attempts at intimidation occur.

The choice is yours how you wish to proceed. To be very frank, banning you would make my life easier, but I don't want to do that—and you can prevent me from doing so in any case by simply by changing your behavior. If you make continued personal attacks or threats of any kind, you will be banned. In order to contribute effectively, you will also have to learn to obey our core policies on original research and neutral point of view. I urge you to read my words carefully, think about what your options are and what you want, and react based on calm consideration. -- SCZenz 21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am taking this edit to mean that you have made your choice, and I have blocked you indefinitely. See also WP:AN/I#Indefinite block of KraMuc. -- SCZenz 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Harassment

I'm not in the habit of unblocking people who threaten to harass other users in real life. It is a completely inappropriate reaction to an editing dispute. This kind of behavior is the reason you have been and will continue to be blocked. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Salve, Laurascudder. Mr. S.C. Zemz from Chicago, born in 1982, is assumed to perform work at CERN for the ATLAS project, specifically for the ATLAS Tile Calorimeter. In reality he is continuously misusing his paid working time, however, to fulfill tasks related to his function as an administrator of Wikipedia. Yesterday I left a message for you on the talk page of 'Modern Galilean relaivity', which was quickly removed by Mr. Zenz. Is it possible that you lift the ban against me? I am solely interested in scientific questions and in nothing else. KraMuc, 29 June 2006.

Regardless of whether I would've unblocked you originally, I will certainly not do so when a user is threatening real-life harassment of another editor. It is a completely inappropriate response to an editing dispute and exemplifies the type of behavior you were originally blocked for. Editing Wikipedia is a privledge, not a right, and your behavior is the reason that privledge has been revoked. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Just so you know, reverting your changes takes only around 10 seconds from my watchlist. Continually blanking or vandalizing this talk page or the MGR page is quite a pointless endeavor - it takes much longer for you to edit than it takes for other editors to revert - many don't even need to go to the page itself. Wouldn't you rather discuss issues in a reasonable manner? --Philosophus ^T 09:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KraMuc is back...

..as the dip.t-dialin.net anon:

• 84.154.88.234 (talk · contribs · block log)
  1. 12:27, 24 August 2006 edits Woldemar Voigt; note that KraMuc (talk · contribs · block log) was permabanned on 25 June 2006.
• 84.154.112.248 (talk · contribs · block log)
  1. 04:31, 6 September 2006 complains in User talk:Jimbo Wales, and signs "KraMuc".
  2. 03:42, 6 September 2006 vandalizes my notes on the KraMuc case (see this for why such userspace notes are permissible, but in any case, as a permabanned user, KraMuc should not be editing the Wikipedia at all).

The dip.t-dialin.net domain is registered to Deutsche Telekom AG (dial-up access in Munich).

Should some admin look into this as an apparent violation of KraMuc's permaban?

Compare some previous KraMuc edits from this domain and see other edits here. ---CH 01:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from my page of notes

I have appended KraMuc's comment, which he improperly spammed into my personal notes on the KraMuc case (ignoring the header asking other users not to edit my user subpages). ---CH 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after reviewing KraMuc's edits before and after his permabanning on 25 June 2006, I am not inclined to favor his being allowed to return to the Wikipedia. For example, I note that the last sentence of the message below verges on a violation of WP:NLT, and elsewhere this message appears to violate WP:CIV. I hardly need to say that I feel that his charges about my page of notes on the KraMuc case have no merit whatever, but see this for WP policy on the legitimacy, in some circumstances, of keeping notes on other users.---CH 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that this edit by KraMuc of this very page does seem to demonstrate, at the very least, a certain insensitivity inherent in some kinds of [sic] "jokes". ---CH 05:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KraMuc and anti-Semitism

Hillman, from your age and your mere scientific contributions in the Internet I first had concluded that you are a mature person accessible to logical arguments. But what you are doing here has radically changed my impression on you and your character. I personally regret this development very much. You should be ashamed of yourself.

What you are trying here to do is on a similar low intellectual level as the publications against relativity, which are not based only on logical reasoning but rather on what you call "anti-Semitism" and what in many cases should perhaps better be called anti-Zionism. The only difference is that in this Schlammschlacht you try to be a hero on the side of modern relativity.

I would be glad to know how you managed it to interpret my remark on Mrs. Getrud Walton as "anti-Semitism". Sorry, but are you not quite right in your head?

Under the title sapere aude Mrs. Walton publishes in the Internet lists of authors who during the past opposed relativity, and she also draws attention to similar lists produced by other authors. I had contact with her, from the following reason: She had heared from secondary literature, such as the books by O'Rahilly and by O. Jefimenko, of the existence of Woldemar Voigt's paper of 1887 on Doppler's principle. Her assessment of Voigt's paper had been based on these secondary sources, since she had not been in the position to get hold of a copy of Voigt's original paper. In the article sapere aude she had asked in public for help, because she had written already to many libraries in the U.K., including the National Library, without success. Therefore, I walked to a library in Germany in order to get a copy of Voigt's paper for her and to send it to her by snake mail. In a letter to me she expressed her thanks. She also told me something on her story of life.

Some weeks later I looked again at sapere aude in order to see what she now had written on Voigt's paper. Unfortunately, she had misinterpreted Voigt's Eq.(2), which represents a general form of the Galilei transformation. She wrote instead that Voigt's Eq.(2) resembles a transformation previoiusly employed by Felix Klein and/or by Minkowski. I tried to point out to her her misinterpretation, but without any success. Since she got a little bit furious, I tried to make jokes with her, but this did not help either. She withdrew her novel version of the chapter on Voigt and re-installed an older one. This is the sole reason why I called Mr. Walton's writings "relativity prosa"!

By the way, Mrs. Walton is a decisive anti-Zionist! I should also point out that the many persons mentioned here, which you bring into connection with "anti-Semitism", are hitherto completely unknown to me!

To me it is quite normal that Wikipedia's administrators probably have different religions. When I tried to correct some assertions in the articles "Philpp Lenard" and "Deutsche Physik" some users, probably students, suspected behind my activities "anti-Semitism". From some of the over-sensitive reactions of an administrator, I received the impression that he was Jewish, and I said so on the talk page in order to clarify my standpoint wizh him, which has nothing to so with "anti-Semitism". I was then blocked by an administrator on the grounds that I had "propagated own racial research" in the article. To me, however, a Jew is a member of a particular religious group, not of a race. Unfortunaltely, highly immature and emotionally unstable admistrators, such as Elke Sauer, are allowed to block other users on emotional and childish grounds.

But the difference, Hillman, is that these administratos are young, unexperiences students, while you are in the fifties. The dirt, which you try to shed here on other people who you don't know well enough, has, of course, its effect on young students.

As I said before, as a scientist you should be ashamed of yourself. What you are producing here is nothing else than bad repute and almost of legal relevance. KraMuc84.154.112.248 10:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)