User talk:Drift chambers

Hello, Drift chambers and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page 666 (number) has been reverted.
Your edit here to 666 (number) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://theoutwardquest.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/666/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Number of the Beast 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 as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because 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 constructively to this encyclopedia.  
Your edit here to Number of the Beast was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://theoutwardquest.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/666/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Information added to the Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources external to the wikipedia itself. We cannot use the Wikipedia itself, or variants or mirrors of it, as you appeared to do to the Call sign article. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for adding a page on Henri Stierlin. Please don't use machine translation though because they are always faulty and are sometimes very hard to clean up. Next time you'd like to have a page from another Wikipedia translated to English, please see WP:Translation. Regards, De728631 (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1aWould you care to explain what this is about? Testing your rollback feature? Nageh (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 0aUser:DVdm passed through the alternative account for this User (i.e.Neutralcurrent) and noted edits considered vandalism.This edit (Coding theory)didn't seem like vandalism either, although there were two elsewhere which needed attention.In conclusion pressed rollback investigating this function.Drift chambers (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

by investigating is meant testing,(unknowing of trhe function/not knowing the function) did in some way have my hand forced by the panic of DVdm (wholesale)-vandalism-checking-activity-,but that's O.kDrift chambers (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b :I checked a couple of your edits, and many of them are indeed pointless and violating WP:MOS. Please get yourself acquainted with the rules before carrying out these kind of mass edits. Please use the WP:Sandbox for testing and not actual article pages. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, you are translating original-language book titles into English! What is going on in your mind? These are the actual titles. Nageh (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Argh, and you are even using machine translation! Nageh (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 0bThere is locations somewhere in wikipedia which state the rules you refer to but somewhere else state also( or there-abouts)that these aren't absolute strict rules,

perhaps working outside these rules is helpful to some,(i.e. working from this second non-strict rules factor).

not really sure the edits to which your reference is made would be helpful if there were more details as to pointless comment so there could be some verification on my part,as there are a number of mistakes that have been made through tiredness which are in the large majority of edits rectified immediately,perhaps it was those to which the comment is made.Not read anywhere the criticism of pointlessness in wikipedia, surely a subjective/or personal judgement which isn't reflected elsewhere.(one man's meat is another man's murder)and scientific methodology doesn't support a small survey size(i.e.checked a couple of ) to great a conclusive opinion,would appreciate again your justification or opinion on this comment (as consensus is the rule)to arrive at a constructive and agreed conclusion.

The machine translations are to save time and did check the translation again once the article had been viewed,and Wikipedia is English language so the English version translation is a requirement.(c.f translating original-language book titles)Drift chambers (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1c :Ok, I will clarify what I meant by "pointless". Let's take these edits as an example. WP:MOS states that article titles and redirects to an article should be formatted in bold letters, not in italic as you changed it to. You changed an "and" into an "et" sign (&), which is discouraged by the MOS. Further below you moved the closing quotation mark towards the end of the first paragraph in the blockquote but it seems that the second paragraph would be part of the quote (actually, MOS states that no quotation marks should be used for blockquotes). It seems that I reverted some rightful wiki links in the process, which was not my intent.

Regarding your translations of book titles: If you simply replace the original language title with an English title then this is not the actual source an article may be based on, nor may there even be an English version of the book with that title. In other words, replacing the title is not helpful at all, and in fact misleading! If you really want to provide a translation leave the original-language title in place and add the translation within parentheses. Furthermore, if you don't know that language too well I suggest you to not rely on machine translations. Heck, even your recent reinstantiations of English book titles in Jürgen von Beckerath are inaccurate! But machine translation is cheap, right? Nageh (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 0c was looking for the correct translation here but there isn't another apart from my own.If it is the case that they are wrong,there hasn't been an effort to correct this and accurate alternate provided by User:Nageh .think it better to make the article correct first before hurling your rhetoric towards myself,that is if your aware of the correct translations.otherwise when an english-language article is lacking anything other than german titles better to work through and create a close enough effort.Drift chambers (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 1d  ::The lack of effort is on your side. You disregard WP:MOS, you disregard WP:Naming_conventions_(books)#Title_translations, which states that English translations should be provided for non-Latin book titles, you disregard my further explanations above, and you accuse me of hurling mere rhetoric towards you. Nice move. Nageh (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• od logged off until tommorowDrift chambers (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1aCan you explain why you keep jumping between your two accounts, editing the same article, only minutes apart? As far as I can tell, it doesn't fall under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Nymf _hideliho! 06:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 0a::Please detail the specific occurence in question and will return with answer, although it isn't a matter by choosing the alternative account for any reason other than had become unable to continue with that user neme editing direction so had to change to the alternative name as find it helps investigate the whole wikipedia domain with alternative accounts;was considering the neccessity of bringing one of the account names closer alignment( with policy), although there is an entry somewhere else that states something like there are no hard and fast rules upon wikipedia, so had interpreted this clause in this instance knowing the contradiction there. Though someone might consider sockpuppetry the challenge to be appropriate, there isn't any malice or hidden agenda to have these alternative accounts, infact there is another UA1high which is also a physics username,being used.Really considered too selfish on my part to hold, something like a monopoly of these physics username accounts,but having to learn about accountancy elsewhere as a subject did consider account managemnt as something must cut my teeth upon,and again was considering a query with the help desk as had proceeded from a clean-start situation to Neutralcurrent,to find making use of a number of physics named accounts would be of use to those analysts who would make sense of the editing patterns, so did so for dreasons of artistry.c.f PrometheusHe was a champion of mankind, known for his wily intelligence, who stole fire from the gods (Zeus) and gave it to mortals reference for this is There is scholarly thought that man already had fire, and it was taken away by Zeus. Cf. M.L. West commentaries on Hesiod, W.J. Verdenius commentaries on Hesiod, and R. Lamberton's Hesiod, pp.95–100.

0b::So did know there was some wrongness to the choice but did consider could make some legitamate and constructive use of these acounts for the purpose of editing activities and certainly not for any reason which falls outside of the activities of a legitimate and bona fide editor.Drift chambers (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b:::I am sorry, but I have no idea what you just said. As you can tell from WP:SOCK#LEGIT, sockpuppeting is only allowed if you have a valid reason for doing so. I see edits 8 minutes apart at the Rachel Weisz article (1, 2). In the 666 (number) article, you were editing as Drift chamber. A bot then reverted you. You quickly login as Neutral current and revert the bot, and then right back in as Drift chamber and keep editing. These are just a few examples of many. That kind of editing is not okay! Nymf _hideliho! 16:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 0c ::::Correct me if this is a mistake but the bot is designed to revert edit from new inexperienced users who have done few edits, which isn't the case here as have had edited over 1000 on previous(not those discussed here) accountsDrift chambers (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 1c :::::So you are saying you have other undisclosed accounts? Nymf _hideliho! 16:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 0d ::::::the previous two are dis-continued, i.e inactive(User:furkhaocean,and User:furkaocean)these can be located from archeoastronomyDrift chambers (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• 1d :::::::As far as I can tell, this isn't a WP:CLEANSTART as you are still editing the same kind of articles. Question 1: Do you have a legit use of two accounts? Question 2: Why have you jumped accounts 4 times? Nymf _hideliho! 16:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 0e::::::::the same kinds of behaviors and activities.Drift chambers (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 1e :::::::::I'll just bring this to ANI. I'll let you know when the thread is up. Nymf _hideliho! 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of verifiability, thank you. However the information you refer to is in the article's lead section which is intended to summarise the rest of the article. As explained in WP:LEADCITE it is not necessary to provide citations for information in the lead which is repeated in the article's body, as is the case here (in the "Terminology" section). The definition you added is also incorrect, or at least overly simplistic. The word "code" in the context of cryptography has a specific meaning, and there is far more to cryptography than codes (again this is explained in the "terminology" section). Hut 8.5 19:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it, Drift chambers aka Neutral current aka furkhaocean aka furkaocean. If you have absolutely no knowledge about a difficult subject such as cryptography don't go ahead and google some wrong dictionary definitions (as you did so far in countless other articles) and insist on adding them. Hut 8.5 has already explained to you that modern cryptography is actually about ciphers and not codes; these are quite different concepts. Furthermore, cryptography is much more than the study of ciphers, but - as the article more correctly describes - the practice of hiding (and protecting) information from adversaries. Or, as Mihir (based on Rivest) has described it quite generally, "cryptography is about constructing and analyzing protocols which overcome the influence of an adversary". Your editing is contentious: please stop it. Nageh (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Edit warring is considered disruptive and can get you blocked. Hut 8.5 09:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

c/o User talk:Nageh the following from the article ciphertext

In cryptography, ciphertext (or cyphertext) is the result of encryption performed on plaintext using an algorithm, called a cipher.[1] Ciphertext is also known as encrypted or encoded information.

this article doesn't reflect changes either,as there is no mention of modern cryptographyDrift chambers (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the above reply is meant only as,for the attention of User talk:Nageh

i.e mea culpaDrift chambers (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not have an effect on the fact that a code is defined differently from a cipher, and even classical cryptography was not only concerned with codes. Concerning classical vs. modern cryptography, most of the article discusses modern cryptography. Nageh (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drift chambers. You have new messages at Pigby's talk page.
Message added 19:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi there! I reverted your edits to Socrates that put a number of terms in bold. The Manual of Style suggests using boldface only for the article title and a few other occasions, not for important or key terms; see WP:MOSBOLD. Happy editing! RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you recently created the article Antidorus of Cyme. I was wondering if you could help us out - the article currently links to three disambiguation pages: Peripatetic, Ergo and Cyme. Do you think you could point these to the correct articles? Sometimes it's difficult to know what the original author intended. This tool is very helpful. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have a couple of comments on your recent edits of Shmuel Agmon:

• the Emet prize announcement is already cited in the article, so if you want to cite it once again, you can reference the same link (instead of adding the same ref. several times). The first time you cite a ref. you give it a name (e.g. ^[1]), and the next time you cite the same ref (e.g. ^[1]).

• Are you sure the "learning section" in its current form is in place? The article does not mention where Agmon studied, et cet, so the info seems to be out of context. Also, I think it would be more important to add at least a short paragraph about Agmon's work (unfortunately, I am not competent to do this), before adding more biographic material.

Best regards, Sasha (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you worked on cleaning up some of the Egyptian mythology pages such as Anuket and others. You have been adding websites as sources for the articles. That is not the sources Wikipedia is looking for per WP:RELIABLE. The articles need to be referenced by either books or journals that are reputable and preferably peer reviewed. I have found that sometimes the fastest way to get the sources is to do a search on google books. It still requires some thought about which books are reliable and which ones are not, but often the name of the author gives a clue in that direction. Websites are almost never appropriate as sources, unless they are maintained by for instance a university (the one you have on the Edfu Project is excellent and should probably be added as a link in a section labeled External Links?). --AB (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about your edits to ancient Egypt articles over the past few days. Aside from the problem with reliable sources that User:AnnekeBart points out above, there are also formatting problems. The first word of each section heading is supposed to be capitalized, and typing "return" several times to create huge blocks of white space is not a good way to arrange the elements of the article. Plus, you include long quotations from ancient Egyptian texts. That's not absolutely wrong, but quotations from primary sources like that are supposed to be used sparingly. For example, there are dozens of spells in the Pyramid Texts that mention the Duat by name, but only the passages (not whole spells) that are most relevant to understanding what the Duat is should be quoted in article text. Moreover, recent translations of foreign language texts are copyrighted. If you're quoting directly from Allen's book, as you seem to be, quotations that are too long could be considered a copyright violation. A. Parrot (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use The amount used isn't substantial in comparison to the whole content,the qoutes aren't from Allen directly ,instead quotes of translations of the original egyptian The Duat use is relatively long but without any use of comment by Allen (so the use is translation ),while the Aken quote is very short in comparison to the whole work,and the small comment used from Allen is significantly different.Copyright Act of 1976.So your concern is with the Duat usage presumably. Drift chambers (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC) [Contributions A.Parrot] Drift chambers (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Consulnico, from the French Wikipedia, where I've seen some of your edits today. You've put interwikis (i.e. a link to the same article in another language of wikipedia) in the bodies of articles, but you have been reverted, so I've come here to understand why. As I can see in your page of contributions, you're doing the exactly same thing, but it's absolutely useless because if you look at the left column in every article, you can see that there are links to the same article in other languages of wikipedias. If you click on one of these links, you see the article in another language.

So, you don't have to continue this, because these changes should not be accepted by the community. Regards, --Consulnico (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert you, because that would break 3RR, but when formatting reference please try to use a consistent style. I would advise Template:cite web. Ironholds (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drift chambers (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that an acknowledgement? :S Ironholds (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the secure server was unavailable yesterday from the log-in page, so was unable to provide your answer; was meant as a recognition that your mail had been read.Drift chambers (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC) anyway had to locate the secure server via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Logging_in Drift chambers (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha. Ironholds (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As I have already said, please use a referencing style consistent with the article or, indeed, Wikipedia as a whole. Neutral case citations are the consistent style - please stick to them. Ironholds (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  For the third time, stop inventing magical new conventions. "use a referencing style consistent with the article or, indeed, Wikipedia as a whole" is not "alter all the citations" or "please, feel free to make up your own way of doing things used literally nowhere else". I'm not going to revert you, because it's getting to the point where there is edit-warring, but I have repeatedly brought up my concerns and you have repeatedly failed to discuss them. You're getting dangerously close to a block. Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also against the WP:MOS. Please, stop changing the citations without discussion. WP:BRD and all that. →Σ ⚑  ☭  23:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, the original format already contained the dates. Secondly, "ignore all rules" is "when a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it" - how does writing case citations ALL IN CAPS improve Wikipedia? Third, your article linked to two hidden journal articles, neither of which are accessible, rendering the references just as pointless, accompanied by a report from Australia that isn't even the case transcript! Understanding the cases' relevance and meaning is perfectly clear - when the article says "as in Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd, the courts "bear in mind that considerations of public interest are paramount". Because of this, there are many different things which enhance or detract from the "fair" nature of the dealing", it seems obvious to parse it as "Ashdown v Telegraph Group is a case in which the public interest was kept in mind by the courts". Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if it could be clarified from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1142.html the site shows citation Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142 (18 July, 2001) and underneath the line cite as:

then

2001 (7 of these)and 2002(4 of these)

showing in -2.- an additional date indicating these number of hearings (that is 11 hearings in total to reach a verdict)Drift chambers (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

at the time as your mail arrived was about to create:

-Links to case transcriptions- (title of section )

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE PADDY ASHDOWN, MP PC- and -TELEGRAPH GROUP LTD((2001)) EWCA Civ 1142, (2001) 24(9) IPD 24058, ((2001)) HRLR 57, ((2001)) EMLR 44, ((2001)) 4 All ER 666, ((2001)) UKHRR 1242, ((2002)) Ch 149, ((2002)) ECC 19, ((2002)) RPC 5, ((2001)) 3 WLR 1368, ((2002)) ECDR 32

(BAILII.org) retrieved 15:16GMT 1.10.11Drift chambers (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't. "cite as" is "these following things are case citations". Those are not for 11 hearings to reach a verdict, those are for 11 different places and ways in which the verdict was reported. Precisely what is your specialisation in English law? Ironholds (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Ironholds. Your case citation style is bizarre, disruptive and certainly non-standard for Wikipedia (and what other institutions do elsewhere is irrelevant). Anyone who think that Ashdown v Telegraph Group had eleven hearings because it is contained in eleven different law reports probably ought not to be adding / editing case citations to legal articles. Bencherlite^Talk 11:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay; first, I really couldn't understand your last message. Second, could you keep comments under a single heading on my talkpage instead of creating new ones? I think Sigma and Bencherlite's comments above form a fairly broad consensus - please stop making these changes. Ironholds (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop Small categories of artist albums are explicitly allowed per WP:SMALLCAT/WP:ALBUM. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC) am looking into this - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:CategoriesDrift chambers (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC) & https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Category:Songs_by_artistDrift chambers (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist Drift chambers (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right There are even categories that are entirely made up of redirects for albums (e.g. Category:The_Balham_Alligators_albums.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/(7568) 1988 VJ2 has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/(7568) 1988 VJ2, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. Petan-Bot (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/(7568) 1988 VJ2. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Du-Ku has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a bilingual dictionary: WP:NOTDIC

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent page moves: parenthetical tags are generally added to article titles only for the purposes of disambiguation; i.e., to distinguish between two or more articles with the same name. The current convention regarding geographical features (WP:NCGN) is to use the widely accepted name, and only add additional text if needed to distinguish between multiple articles that share the same name. If you want to change this convention to use parenthetical phrases for category navigation, can you propose the new convention at WT:NCGN, rather than make pagemoves that move certain articles out of step with established naming conventions? --Muchness (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do find the page move of Mount Garibaldi, Mount Cayley and Black Tusk inappropiate because all of these names most commonly refer to the mountains the articles cover. Volcanoguy 00:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I strongly oppose changing the name of the article about the California mountain as it is clear that this mountain is by far the primary topic people are looking for when searching. As a result of a flurry of edits by others following your change, the main Mount Shasta article is now inaccessible and leads to a redirect loop. Please help clean up this mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh, I just looked at your contributions list and see that you are renaming lots of mountain articles. This is not necessary and not useful except in the rare case that two well-known mountains share a name. Please stop and discuss your reasoning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your renaming of mountain articles to include a region, country or province. It breaks two of the five principal naming criteria at WP:TITLE, namely conciseness and consistency (as Wikipedia generally does not do this except where disambiguation is required). The moves should be reverted. If you wish to challenge the naming policy you need to discuss it first with the community e.g. at the Village Pump or the Talk Page of WP:TITLE. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to reinforce the comments of Cullen328 and Bermicourt. If there's any possibility of people disagreeing with a page move it's best to discuss it beforehand in an appropriate venue.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I also am here to support the remarks of the editors above. Please stop this unnecessary renaming as it just causes more work for it to be undone. If you believe you have justifications for doing so, please discuss them first. Thanks. RedWolf (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board

Please review WP:Minor Edit. You should only be claiming a minor edit when it is truly a minor edit (such as spelling corrections, obvious missed paragraph breaks, etc.). It should never be used when removing several sentences/paragraphs, nor any change in the content/meaning of a sentence or paragraph. All of these instances where you should not declare "minor edit" you have edits in your history in which you have improperly marked as "minor". — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for my benefit, please state the instances/examples that caused this comment Drift chambers (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many to list them all. :( Another user mentioned such a case in the section below. From a quick reglance at your contributions, there are examples such your "expanding article" labeled as "minor" but by the description alone shows that it is definitely not. Moving/retitling an article is never a minor edit, yet you've done that with several articles (moving articles is such a non-minor edit that most will get reverted immediately if there hasn't already been a consensus discussion about it first). Adding categories, again. Anything that adds, takes away, or changes the meaning of a sentence/paragraph/article is not a minor edit (reverting vandalisms is an exception).

On the other hand, you have a few edits which are correctly labeled as "minor" such as wikifying terms, punctuation, correcting bad grammar (without changing the intended meaning).

When someone sees a user's contribution list and sees that most of everything is labeled "minor," people get suspicious and start looking at your edit history. Usually the only time such a thing happens is when all that someone is doing is going around and correcting spelling and grammar for an hour; your edits are clearly not all that but includes clear content changes and article moves.

Not trying to be an arse, just trying to help you out with the side-benefit of you not having people getting irritated by your edits (some might interpret this as trying to sneak edits "under the radar"). :P

As a side-comment, I'm impressed by the amount of time you've put-in in an attempt to improve articles. Far more effort than I have put into WP. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Wayne Horowitz, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. In other words, there is no practical or realistic way in which all the edits you've made in creating that article could be considered "Minor". ClaretAsh (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(content is mostly book titles), A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. > otherwise will review my understanding as suggested. Drift chambers (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of this much content does not qualify as minor. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Addition, as with removal, of content are NOT minor changes. As myself and others have tried to communicate, marking edits as minor is not the default convention. The default is to NOT tick the "minor edit" check box when saving an edit. In other words, if in doubt, don't mark an edit as minor. ClaretAsh (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a total of four accounts: user:Furkaocean, user:Furkhaocean, user:Neutral current, user:Drift chambers. Do you have any others? Those four accounts have overlapping edits on 22 article pages. Multiple accounts are highly discouraged, and using multiple accounts on the same article is especially problematic. See WP:SOCK. Is there some reason you need to have so many accounts? Feel free to send me an email if the reasons are confidential. Would you object to having the other accounts blocked to prevent accidental misuse in the future?   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Wayne Horowitz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails the professor test.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ClaretAsh (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wayne Horowitz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Horowitz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ClaretAsh (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

probably meets criteria from 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.Drift chambers (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC) as shown from http://www.afhu.org/law/first-israel-cuneiform-tablet-uncovered-parallels-code-hammurabi is ...Prof. Wayne Horowitz of the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology...Drift chambers (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the detailed Notes which follow.

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article Du-Ku in the New Articles list-- Amy Z (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1]20:29A Chattering bird builds no nest20:10 >"Lost time is never found again." Benjamin Franklin> goto [2]Drift chambers (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1801 publications, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Legend of the destruction of mankind, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drift chambers, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:Drift chambers/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These require two parts;

a)

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>

b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";

== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Drift chambers/reftest and try it out.

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can;t do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), bit, if not, just open the page yourself and choose soemthing appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fanya Montalvo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Questionable WP:NOTABILITY; the two potentially-notability-generating refs, one has just a mention in a single sentence; the other is a brief odd textbook thing which, while suggesting she's a woman of achievement, makes no more claim of importance than that she went into the AI field. Other ghits and gnews hits aren't of sort that establish notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, with the addition of a section header "Introduction" to the Pope article, there is now no lead paragraph. It is especially vital for a lengthy, high-importance article such as this one to have one or more lead paragraphs which summarize the contents of the whole article, and such a paragraph must be placed before any section headers. See MOS:LEAD for more information. Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding ==Intriduction== to the lead section of articles. I appreciate your interest in making it easier to navigate articles but the Manual of Style does not allow a section heading for the lead paragraph. Jojalozzo 23:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Drift chambers/Emanuel Amiran-Pougatchov. Since you had some involvement with the User:Drift chambers/Emanuel Amiran-Pougatchov redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Drift chambers (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drift chambers/Avraham Eilam-Amzallag, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drift chambers/Avraham Eilam-Amzallag and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Drift chambers/Avraham Eilam-Amzallag during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Drift chambers (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Drift chambers/Eitan Avitsur. Since you had some involvement with the User:Drift chambers/Eitan Avitsur redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Drift chambers (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Drift chambers/Gad Avrahami. Since you had some involvement with the User:Drift chambers/Gad Avrahami redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Drift chambers (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Drift chambers/Dov Carmel. Since you had some involvement with the User:Drift chambers/Dov Carmel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Drift chambers (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Drift chambers/Josef Bardanashvili. Since you had some involvement with the User:Drift chambers/Josef Bardanashvili redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Drift chambers (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astrophysics Strategic Mission Concept Studies. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Astrophysics Strategic Mission Concept Studies redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Drift chambers (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like any pages in your userspace (i.e. that are subpages of user:Drift chambers, or their talk pages), you don't need to nominate them at MfD or RfD. These can be speedily deleted under criterion U1 - see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#U1. You just need to put {{db-author}} on the page and an administrator will be along to delete it before too long. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC) danke ^[1] Drift chambers (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/Amphicrates of Athens has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amphicrates of Athens, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just declined your request for creation of Category:Greeks who committed suicide because we already have Category:Suicides in Greece. While I had a closer look, I noticed we have a categories even more appropriate to the articles you suggest: Category:Ancient people who committed suicide and its sub-categories. Maybe that helps. Yours, Huon (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Possibly not the correct choice though as;

Category:Ancient people who committed suicide > A large category for all ancient people

Category:Suicides in Greece > is people who commited suicide whilst within Greece

Category:Greeks who committed suicide > people born to the Greece having then at some time committed suicide

plus

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Category:Ancient_Greeks_by_death [this the original source of Category creation request]

shows four categories is incomplete without the requested category

Drift chambers (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/De Beneficiis has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/De Beneficiis, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we wait with populating Category:Greeks who committed suicide until after it has been moved to Category:Ancient Greeks who committed suicide; otherwise the work will have to be done twice. I am also skeptical about adding mythological persons such as Antigone or Ajax; those should not share a category with real persons. Huon (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Ho Ho will discuss in the morning as going to bed now, will do anyway happy editing until we meet again and toodle-pip Drift chambers (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Tuphium, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page C.f. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Langstrother, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/Assessed Taxes Act 1840 has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Assessed Taxes Act 1840, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/Apis mellifera adamii has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Apis mellifera adamii, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Apis mellifera sicula was shorter than the entry in Subspecies of Apis mellifera and so I've redirected the first to the second. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Cat intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page P. tigris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/Rangwapithecus has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rangwapithecus, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nacholapithecus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Tummal Inscription, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Drift chambers (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Homo erectus tautavelensis was a mess. There were clusters of references for every single sentence and a bunch of them didn't even relate to the information given. I used a lot of time and the default Wikipedia templates to make it more clear what information was actually present in the references you used. I'll revert you again. Please have a look at WP:REF and the tips given to you above before creating more articles. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Old World monkey introduced a large amount of whitespace. Remember that people using different screen resolutions will see the articles differently, so while introducing white space may improve the layout for you, for others it may not. You can use {{clear}} to add a line break, though it is generally preferable to just rearrange the problem images/text. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding whitespace to articles as you have in this edit to Homo erectus tautavelensis. Jack (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, when referencing, could you follow a style from this page. Your current method is a mess. Maybe think about using something like {{cite book}}. Try and write (at least): Author. (Year). Title. Publisher. Page numbers. Let me know if you need any help with anything. I've put cleanup tags on some pages you've been editing recently, mainly because you've used strange referencing systems, introduced whitespace in lots of strange places (including at the beginning of articles??), and leaving lots of copyediting issues. That you're contributing so much is brilliant but could you please be a little more careful so as not to create extra work for other editors. Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/Yehuda Meir Getz has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yehuda Meir Getz, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yehuda Meir Getz.
• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muon Collider, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Nyanzapithecus pickfordi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leakey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/Mousteroid has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mousteroid, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mousteroid, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/Stilted speech has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stilted speech, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/Kattendijk Sands has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kattendijk Sands, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fekri Hassan.
• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jarkeld (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fekri Hassan.
• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft.
• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delusional intuition, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Drift chambers/Equatorius has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Equatorius, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Moja (chimpanzee), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swahili (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you recently created an article at AfC with the following three articles mentioned but not included in either inline citations or listed in the References section:

• Kelley et al, 2002 ^{[clarification needed]}
• McCrossin & Benefit, 2000 ^{[clarification needed]}
• Sherwood et al, 2002 ^{[clarification needed]}

with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: you may find the following useful - you can just copy-and-paste it in whenever you need a citation, and then fill in the main fields:

Journal Template:Cite journal

<ref name=""> {{cite journal |last= |first= |author= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |day= |title= |journal= |volume= |series= |issue= |page= |pages= |publisher= |location= |issn= |doi= |url= |accessdate= }} </ref>  ;-}

Today I reverted all your edits to Isaac Newton's religious views. Next time you edit an article I will see what I can do to have you permanently blocked. Discuss your edits on a relevant talk page before editing from now on. Thanks. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Simple-type schizophrenia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Madrid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

De analysi per aequationes numero terminorum infinitas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Collins

Isaac Newton's religious views (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cat intelligence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WAIS

Infinity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Matrix

Infinity (philosophy) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Matrix

Thales' theorem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Texas University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drift. I reverted your recent additions at Isaac Newton's religious views. I believe your recent edits have turned an article that was rated good into one that currently isn't. You are more than welcome to improve and make additions to the article, but it should not reduce the quality of the article, especially ones that have undergone a form of peer review. I would suggest you detail your changes at the talk page first. AIRcorn (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cat intelligence , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tripnoted (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Infinity (philosophy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seneca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Journal for Communication and Culture has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not listed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the article are not clear. Break your changes into pieces and discuss your ideas and the sources on the talk page so that it can be improved incrementally. I can help with his as well, but only if it is done slowly and without throwing all the information in a heap into the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Infinity (philosophy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantheon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your style of editing and communicating. The thread is Competence. Thank you. ClaretAsh 14:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably see all of these messages as annoying nuisances (and I can't blame you), but it would probably be in your best interest to respond at the ANI thread about you and otherwise be communicative with editors who are bringing up issues with your writing style. There are currently some editors asking for you to be permanently blocked, and having some input from you will help your chances of avoiding that fate. This essay might be helpful in illustrating why. If you have any questions about what's going on, feel free to ask them. —SW— ^yak 19:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Drift chambers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Just do it! (with civility, of course!) WP:BB This editor is dis-agreeing with the claim that there hasn't been made any effort to change according to advice. and also that the situation wasn't dealt with by editors concerned in accordance with Wikipedia policy. For instance my behaviour isn't true of Signs of disruptive editing in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing nor Disruption within WP:BP there isn't a time when this editor has reverted on three seperate occasions edit wars mass reversion is inacceptable of edits without explaniation or constructive crticism considering the number of edits referenced from verifiable sources, without any effort to subsequently engage themselves with the process of editing upon the article other than to revert. "When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict" (WP:AGF) I don't see as yet anyone concerned has made any constructive change to the article other than to revert another edit. This isn't a re-solving of the situation just editors without sufficient confidence in their own abilities (with respect to philosophy - other than CRGreathouse) and apparently with nothing to add, attempting to bluntly and clumsily copyedit an article without due attention to Wikipedia policy. the actions of these editors is not in keeping with a scholarly and intelligent activity, and is only the efforts of person's disinterested in the subject trying to further there own personal or egoistic agenda, abuse procedure (in the interest of cruel fun or amusement) and gain some sense of superiority when the object of the task of editing is in the writing and not in an attempt at character assassination or the discrediting of anothers efforts. Perhaps if editors had engaged in a constructive effort to add something to the article while criticising this editor then the result would not have become as poisoned and one-sided. The whole occurance seems indicative of rash judgement without the investigative efforts necessary into the actual nature of edits nor an intelligent critical activity upon material that did infact contain bona fide content, as is shown by an article that now yet again is all but the same to the aticle prior to any effort made by this editor. Drift chambers (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, WP:NOTTHEM. Your block is about your behaviour, and your personal response to disputes. We have dispute resolution processes, and to be honest, walls'o'text such as below are definitely not a part of it. I would encourage you to go back to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia in order to understand what the project is for, and how to contribute. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Further to the above-linked ANI thread, I have blocked your account for 48 hours because it appears that you are paying little attention to the advice and concerns of other editors. While we welcome your enthusiasm and willingness to contribute to Wikipedia, you cannot just do your own thing. The style, format and acceptable content of Wikipedia articles is quite closely circumscribed, and your ongoing failure to follow appropriate policies and guidelines is creating unnecessary work for other editors who then have to clean up after you. It is with regret that I've removed your ability to edit for a short period, but I hope my action impresses on you that we are serious about this. This block, which is intended to be along the lines of a shot across the bows, will expire when the 48 hours is up and you can then return to editing, although if you continue to ignore site standards you are likely to be reblocked in fairly short order.

You can still edit this talk page, so you can request to have this block reviewed by another administrator by using the {{unblock}} template (instructions at the link). However we advise that you read our guide to making unblock requests first. EyeSerene^talk 11:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anyway just to show that isn't necessarily correct to block was just trying to save this to CRGreathouse: (11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC) for referenced version see below (via this link) Drift chambers (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

infinity (philosophy) isn't a mathematical article primarily. As a defining quality the concept of infinity is something having no limit none whatsoever. So there is no sentence using the word "infinity" that would also include a comparison to quantity, other than in a use of the symbol that used in mathamatics, meaning tending to infinity. (as according to the Big Bang theory or otherwise ) If a person were to think of the Universe and all the instances where infinity is included necessarily in order to understand something, then there is only one type of spatial infinity, that is imagining the distance in any direction, passing in the imagination away from Earth to the place in the Universe where everything is expanding into (the receptacle = the vacuum of space) and at the place where being in an imaginary location seeing the blackness of space where there is nothing. In imagining this view then only then is the uselessness of the idea apparent ( and even the most distant object observable has some use, because the information from observation is useful to science). Cosmological infinity though is only darkness, in that since a singularity would have a limited mass, then a limited Universal is necessitated. If the universe contains infinite mass the light of stars from these masses doesn't reach Earth (obviously) (referenced to → W. Olber NIRCam for JWST - University of Arizona Retrieved 2012-03-05 ]) The light from formations are themselves bounded i.e. have boundaries are the limits, the no limits therefore is the black part of the Universe. For practical purposes, interstellar flight or observation of supra-far stellar objects, not being possible, a person is then only able to conclude in the imagination that infinity is located in the unknown of the black part of astronomical images.

Since there is no evidence from science to show the nature of the absolute furthest object as no view of the Universe imaged from telescopy is ever proof that even if a total blackness seeming to be an endless void were found through observation, that there were not another similar chaotic grouping of stellar objects i.e. another Universe at even further distances beyond the capabilities of technology to ever observe, even if suppose interstellar travel were made possible.

Therefore there is absolutely no way to solve these things. In looking into history one finds the infinite in philosophical contemplation that does need to include an element of belief, as uncertainty caused by the incomprehensible nature of thinking should one dwell on these thoughts, there is also the sense that the earth (firstly) and the cosmos (that is made part of earth by photographs) includes something that will never be made a material part of earthly life. Really contemplation does seem to return to a query of how everything on earth and observed in space are having edges and are measurable, but infinity is beyond human i.e. incommensurable. In that all things that are measurable are human and all things purely infinite are not.

Also in the universe that does contain infinity, then this necessitates either a universe without meaning, ie. a physical universe that is totally without any respect to humanity, ie. a godless Universe, or having something that is something to explain the limitation on understanding of the infinite that is making the concept unresolvable in human thought but at the same time necessitated by science and realities of observation. Drift chambers (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

although admittedly having not checked CRGreathouse response on the talk page before reverting his edits, therefore might have been the wrong choice by me as having placed my own revertion and the explanation above in a risky order i.e. the revertion first and the explanation second , there-by possiblyhaving made my situation worse.

never-the-less WP:REVEXP > It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. Try to disclose the link for the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion.

"I don't see how adding that category would be " & "I don't see why the article would merit the category" is honest but uninformative and isn't helpful to my own advancement of understanding, since CRGreathouse hasn't provided any additional information to help me understand his reasoning.Drift chambers (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and also CRGreathouse didn't provide a link to Wikipedia policy which caused me to doubt the validity of the editors reversion , and think that the choice were made only by the editor, in his educated opinion, and not in accordance with practice of Wikipedia, which as some-one might observe for themselves User :Drift chambers has infact attempted to adhere to in edit 10:10, 8 March 2012‎ of the article Drift chambers (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

since the edit of 14:10, 27 February 2012‎ ClaretAsh(talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,222 bytes) (-92,403)‎ . . (Reverting to stable version as the article has become an indecipherable morass of terrible english, random quotes and content of unclear significance.) would hope that

"random quotes and content of unclear significance"

is a comment on the inclusion of non-philosophical information (under the heading > Earlier cultural precedents of 7 March) , since in edit 18:14, 7 March 2012‎ Drift chambers has included a reference of a reliable source that validates some inclusion at least of Hesiod, this being - R. D. McKirahan - Philosophy before Socrates: an introduction with texts and commentary p.7-13 Hackett Publishing, 1994 Retrieved 2012-02-07 this reference was located by this editor at a time after the initial writing (so wasn't included initially as had no contact with the source)Drift chambers (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for sure is considered by this editor that the reverted article > 01:49, 27 February 2012 contains information unnecessary, the parts shown in the Contents as 14 - 23 (not including 17) ,

the parts 7 & 8 (and probably 13) might have been retained by Claret Ash instead of entirely reverting. So was felt by User D-c- that the reversion wasn't very well thought through and was an attempt at damage limitation, without any thought on communication with User:D-c-, in good-faith., especially since the so called stable version was without any mention of Ancient Greek civility, other than containing a lede sentence without any relevant content to which the lede is referring, and to say all modern thought began with Aristotle, together with no inline citation. The article at that stage >[3] is deceptive to the naive reader. So was only in the interests of the reader and my own development of understanding through research that so much information seemingly irrelevant (WP:NOTFORUM) and admittedly not the most attentively scrutinized by myself might have been included. Was wanting only to begin a process of collaborative editing, and had to proceed alone thorugh the article from the 02:58, 3 January 2012‎ article, without peer-review.

So my own understanding was developed (did benefit) by the total reversions, but a better choice was availble to ClaretAsh > WP:PRESERVE especially since "If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage."

in admittance as to my own fault this lies in not being the most intelligent about the subject , "Primary (original) research" > WP:NOTFORUM, and sourcing information while attempting to add relevant information immediately in the hope an authority might arrive to correctly copyedit the article, which didn't happen. Instead the entire article was reverted (14:10, 27 February 2012)‎ at which time no attempt was made by the reverting editor to communicate in any way afterwards other than > 22:51, 5 March 2012‎ ClaretAsh(talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,217 bytes) (-11,203)‎ . . (Please discuss changes on the talk page prior to editing.)Drift chambers (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Competency is required

having proceeded with edits to the article at least in an attempt to locate as much information about the subject for someone to find the information useful for article development, which does slightly jeopardize the integrity of the article is in accordance with > WP:DEVELOP in that my primary goal was to locate as much relevant research and since the article is still at the start stage.

The harm in my own opinion is that Claret Ash didn't preserve the information relevant nor add anything to the article, so the editors actions seemed destructive.

So "..Social incompetence.." on my part might be considered resulting from Claret Ash (although acting in the interests of wikipedia) not acting in accordance with WP:CANTFIX and myself having the opinion that editors are here to provide good editing and create an encyclopedia firstly, not to make discussion and interesting talk-pages to avoid spending too much time in discussion while the article remains unchanged.Drift chambers (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

seemed more important to include the inforamtion than not (justification for inclusionist tendency) → W. Byers - The Blind Spot: Science and the Crisis of Uncertainty "philosophy of math without math is sterile bu math without meaning is doomed to it's own form of sterility"

infinity (philosophy) isn't a mathematical article primarily. As a defining quality the concept of infinity is something having no limit none whatsoever. So there is no sentence using the word "infinity" that would also include a comparison to quantity, other than in a use of the symbol that used in mathamatics, meaning tending to infinity. (as according to the Big Bang theory or otherwise ) If a person were to think of the Universe and all the instances where infinity is included necessarily in order to understand something, then there is only one type of spatial infinity, that is imagining the distance in any direction, passing in the imagination away from Earth to the place in the Universe where everything is expanding into (the receptacle = the vacuum of space) and at the place where being in an imaginary location seeing the blackness of space where there is nothing. In imagining this view then only then is the uselessness of the idea apparent ( and even the most distant object observable has some use, because the information from observation is useful to science). Cosmological infinity though is only darkness, in that since a singularity would have a limited mass, then a limited Universal is necessitated. If the universe contains infinite mass the light of stars from these masses doesn't reach Earth (obviously) (referenced to → W. Olber NIRCam for JWST - University of Arizona Retrieved 2012-03-05 ]) The light from formations are themselves bounded i.e. have boundaries are the limits, the no limits therefore is the black part of the Universe. For practical purposes, interstellar flight or observation of supra-far stellar objects, not being possible, a person is then only able to conclude in the imagination that infinity is located in the unknown of the black part of astronomical images.

Since there is no evidence from science to show the nature of the absolute furthest object as no view of the Universe imaged from telescopy is ever proof that even if a total blackness seeming to be an endless void were found through observation, that there were not another similar chaotic grouping of stellar objects i.e. another Universe at even further distances beyond the capabilities of technology to ever observe, even if suppose interstellar travel were made possible.

Therefore there is absolutely no way to solve these things. In looking into history one finds the infinite in philosophical contemplation that does need to include an element of belief, as uncertainty caused by the incomprehensible nature of thinking should one dwell on these thoughts, there is also the sense that the earth (firstly) and the cosmos (that is made part of earth by photographs) includes something that will never be made a material part of earthly life. Really contemplation does seem to return to a query of how everything on earth and observed in space are having edges and are measurable, but infinity is beyond human i.e. incommensurable. In that all things that are measurable are human and all things purely infinite are not.

Also in the universe that does contain infinity, then this necessitates either a universe without meaning, ie. a physical universe that is totally without any respect to humanity, ie. a godless Universe, or having something that is something to explain the limitation on understanding of the infinite that is making the concept unresolvable in human thought but at the same time necessitated by science and realities of observation. Drift chambers (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Drift chambers (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved March 6th → "spatial infinity" - A. Einstein, S. W. Hawking A stubbornly persistent illusion: the essential scientific works of Albert Einstein Running Press, 27 Nov 2007

→ "The Boundary conditions..." H A Lorentz, A Einstein, H Minkowski, H Weyl The principle of relativity: a collection of original memoirs on the special and general theory of relativity

Retrieved March 7th

→ "From out of that which things arise, there also does their destruction (or dissolution) occur, according to necessity; for they render justice and recompense to one another for their injustice, according to the orderly arrangement of time." → Anaximander (Edward Moore , Heidegger - 'De-Mything' the Logos: Anaximander's Apeiron and the Possibility of a Post-Metaphysical Understanding of the Incarnation

→ online bookstore information

→ Blackwell reference online dio: 10.1111/b.9781405106795.2004.x

→ (criticism of sources, i.e. Plato hostile to Sophists (re-iteration of earlier unshown source ) R.D. McKirahan

→ reference for absolute nothing + "Anthropic cosmogony" The Principle of Sufficient Reason and Absolute Nothing - J. Schleberg : Apeiron - The Journal of Philosophy and Religion at Washington College Volume 9, April 2011

→ the notion that contemplation of the infinite is labyrinthine, but not like a labyrinth De immenso, De minimo and De infinito : Giordani Bruno's micro and infinite universe and the "A-centric labyrinth" of Modern cosmology and it's philosophical constraints M.C.D.Newes Physics Department, University of Maringa Apeiron Volume 8 No.1 January 2001 → Inertia and infinity in the physics of Giordana Bruno - M.C.D.Newes

→ European Graduate School EGS.

→ Einstein Poincare and the Ether - G.Granek Haifa University citing Mach, -

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Infinity_(philosophy). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Take your contributions to the talk page where you should talk in a coherent manner and reach consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reverted from article 19:22, 7 March 2012‎ by CRGreathouse (revert; I looked at the new categories but even those weren't useful -- Category:Philosophical concepts is the only one that really seems to fit, but it's redundant with Concepts in metaphysics) Drift chambers (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category : Reality

....The Greek thinkers in general asked what is the permanent reality that underlies diversity and change of the visible world around us... > A short history of philosophy (1922 - Third Edition) http://www.archive.org/stream/ashorthistoryofp00alexuoft#page/n19/mode/2up Author: Alexander, Archibald Browning Drysdale, 1855-1931Publisher: Glasgow Maclehose, Jackson

infinity is a metaphysical subject Michael Heller, W. Hugh Woodin Infinity: New Research Frontiers - Notes on the concept of the Infinite in the History of Western Metaphysics by D.B.Hart -http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PVNbIGS37wMC&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=metaphysics+is++infinity&source=bl&ots=-aq2RCfb0i&sig=VI1JhjEuhTDhRDkzCv5iUB8NSFI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qVRaT6OJI9On8QOS870-&ved=0CCgQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=metaphysics%20is%20%20infinity&f=false Cambridge University Press, 7 Feb 2011 Drift chambers (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.. Perhaps the most familiar context for discussing infinity is in metaphysics and theology..> (reference contains adverts http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287662/infinity/252429/Metaphysical-infinities)

J. A. Benardete - Infinity: an essay in metaphysics > http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Infinity.html?id=wMgtAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y Drift chambers (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

metaphysics has reality as a subject

... Metaphysics is a systematic attempt to answer the question: What is reality? > http://www.plymouth.edu/department/history-philosophy/what-is/

... Metaphysics is that portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10226a.htm

Conclusion

category metaphysics is helpful for someone to learn the boundary and content of the sub-dicipline metaphysics

category reality is helpful should a person want to engage in actual metaphysical speculation or study

Drift chambers (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... In general...the description of metaphysics as the study of (the nature of) reality seems preferable... > Reality: fundamental topics in metaphysics Peter Loptsonhttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J3MBTOq__nAC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=metaphysics+is+investigating+reality&source=bl&ots=OIWS1V_oG4&sig=04ExR0vi75O0gjqimNiK89_RfvU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R09aT_GxCafB0QWbqOnmDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=metaphysics%20is%20investigating%20reality&f=false University of Ottawa Press, 15 Apr 2009

.. According to Anaximenes, the basic stuff of the world is air. It is both boundless as is underlying reality according to Anaximander, and specific, one of the four elements, as on Thales view... > http://bellevuecollege.edu/

Drift chambers (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drift chambers (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... in truth the potentially infinite has only a borrowed reality, insofar as a potentially infinite concept always points towards a logically prior actually infinite concept whose existence it depends on. Cantor http://www.gap-system.org/~history/HistTopics/Infinity.html Drift chambers (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eAA4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=metaphysics+and+infinity&source=bl&ots=jBnSzrZoVg&sig=TBabHsDoJnLxccV7zagkjStSkKM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oIRaT9vGAY6r8AOTkdCSDw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=metaphysics%20and%20infinity&f=false Metaphysics: Its Structure and Function By Stephan Körner > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eAA4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=metaphysics+and+infinity&source=bl&ots=jBnSzrZoVg&sig=TBabHsDoJnLxccV7zagkjStSkKM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oIRaT9vGAY6r8AOTkdCSDw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=%20infinity&f=false Drift chambers (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics: Concept and Problems By Theodor W. Adorno, Rolf Tiedemann , Stanford University Press, 1 Oct 2002 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TnUsMOoAm0AC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=metaphysics+and+infinity&source=bl&ots=fYfdlfziqw&sig=r1K7YN23CkfILpTtVwakRB67uuw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oIRaT9vGAY6r8AOTkdCSDw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=metaphysics%20and%20infinity&f=false Drift chambers (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC) > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TnUsMOoAm0AC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=metaphysics+and+infinity&source=bl&ots=fYfdlfziqw&sig=r1K7YN23CkfILpTtVwakRB67uuw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oIRaT9vGAY6r8AOTkdCSDw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%20infinity&f=false Drift chambers (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category : Religious philosophical concepts

... Perhaps the most familiar context for discussing infinity is in metaphysics and theology...

> (contains adverts http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287662/infinity/252429/Metaphysical-infinities)

Arvind Sharma Fragments of infinity: essays in religion and philosophy : a festschrift in honour of Professor Huston Smith Prism, 1991 http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Fragments_of_infinity.html?id=YrAqAQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

Infinity: From the Ionian Philosophers to Aristotle 1. The Presocratic Philosophers: The Ionians, Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Democritus 2. Plato and Aristotle – II. The Reflections of Thomas Aquinas and the Theological Significance of the Notion of Infinity – III. Infinity within Galilean and Newtonian Science – IV. The Infinity of Cantor 1. Three Kinds of Infinity 2. The Notion of Transfinite 3. The Power of the Continuum: From the Antinomy of the Power Set to the Axiom of the Power Set – V. Concluding Observations http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/13.asp - Gianfranco Basti

Infinity is a concept of the utmost importance in Christian philosophy and theology. Zimmerman, O. (1910). Infinity. In The Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm

Graham, Loren R. Naming infinity : a true story of religious mysticism and ... www.math.nsc.ru/LBRT/g2/english/ssk/naming_infinity.pdf

Emanuel Swedenborg, John Chadwick ..the infinity of God... The true Christian religion: containing the complete theology of the New Church as foretold by the Lord in Daniel 7:13, 14 and in Revelation 21:2, 3http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ozxNu_uJ8tUC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=infinity+and+religion&source=bl&ots=iwDpKvMoUr&sig=0W1cbaMMecoWI93M_dJK-EYSl0c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=twRbT5iPOIOp0QXStLnBDQ&ved=0CHsQ6AEwCTge# The Swedenborg Society, 1 Jan 1988

Chapter 45. God, Time, and Infinity Melville Y. Stewart William Lane Craig Research ProfessorPublished Online: 29 JAN 2010

DOI: 10.1002/9781444317350.ch45 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444317350.ch45/summary

Religion: beyond a concept - Hent de Vries - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nI3i94U3NAMC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=infinity+and+religion&source=bl&ots=UNFDdS3CMq&sig=Q8M4TwvztLWyr4XbnEOBBbnWqEk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YwZbT9yjNYHX0QXqkfnQCw&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCThG#v=onepage&q=infinity%20and%20religion&f=false

...As part of an expected further study into the role of infinity in stimulating contacts among religion, knowledge and art in Western culture... in - Infinity on the Threshold of Christianity: The Emergence of a positive concept out of negativity - R.Undusk - (Estonian Academy Publishers) https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:EecEtDePXD8J:www.kirj.ee/public/trames_pdf/2009/issue_4/trames-2009-4-307-340.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi7z2WP-ymIb2xMBhrtpok3zLEnXduQM3l0hUwgqTUy7_Hcvfy7x3ay7U1ixB9JlsFcVeP7QF-BOSiICMtJYuqdnWIH3j_Yx57ALQzxR-LCLbKo_VTEJFTHTiKvoxTiJcCcetMz&sig=AHIEtbRXoRa2BG-yOxr7Nsv7Wxx24-xMVw&pli=1

Drift chambers (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(secondary) The Active Side of Infinity - Carlos Castaneda - http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-06-019220-4

Math2033 University of Arkansas http://130.184.5.79/wiki/index.php/Infinity#Religion_and_Infinity.C2.A0

5. in From Religion to Faith: Levinasian Ethics and the Grammar of Address Carl Raschke University of Denver http://www.jcrt.org/archives/04.1/raschke.shtml

Infinity in Science and Religion : The creative role of thinking about infinity - W.Achtner - https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:36HvD1Nd3JgJ:wwww.metanexus.org/archive/conference2004/pdf/achtner.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjBCkyxtWakubSEx5T7XPjAeB4h32ZokZGW7eRuabPAI637RvzODIfIV1rwjR2U997m8DvAr4NT3QZtChweyVcDwtOBxEuRZ4rTSB6-_14Ov49QHRQE3uxeDzBZLdsnSGiebtTS&sig=AHIEtbQFRLSpd4vn5ArvJxrZL2n3i3wJFQ

G. Oppy - Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity ...provisional title God and Infinity... https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:tsup03dG490J:assets.cambridge.org/97805218/60673/frontmatter/9780521860673_frontmatter.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi_HA6ZjKMEGtP60ugrIfi9CAHSa0ol6X9ohSIF_f4nkwiOPd54849Y7AbjG0qxI_ln7SPTfTXuwWCD713NRxjAwQQHly3nkNf6hiKHVrlSJzpJPfbWGYM25TIaKlJxRttJ5eAm&sig=AHIEtbQq2uCGHm-1k_S1P3MloyLGDbZFWw

Drift chambers (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophical concepts

is helpful as categorized as this, for the reader wanting to learn about a broader range of subjects than just metaphysical, should the person have navigated to the article via the category from another page

Badino, Massimiliano (2004) The Concept of Infinity in Modern Cosmology http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1756/

....Is there a difference between the mathematical concept of infinity and infinity in terms, say, of space or time—the philosophical concept?... > see [4] [5]

...Infinity is a concept of the utmost importance in Christian philosophy and theology.... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm

.... concepts of infinity in theories of space and time... http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521860673&ss=exc (7th paragraph)Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity Graham Oppy Monash University, Victoria

....This is a seminar on the history of the concept of infinity ... https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:lXl0lk2cNSMJ:www.college.ucla.edu/ge/meetings/111007_PHILOS_98T.pdf+the+philosophical+concept+infinity&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjNY5IxZm2A6HX_DVk-bpVa4Rw8i2hdsdwT5eTW6jYOwPPpA348sWPw6VvDOZyIzZhrMDqS_G_gxeAaAop8UieINWkIXb4TGfzGdL2Q4CH3JjjsECIPO6dT20xzxZg__0e0S2dn&sig=AHIEtbRoowPBZHX2UmRQiBMacrxNkiwXFQ E. Nutting - UCLA

Leibniz conception of Quantity, Number and Infinity http://www.jstor.org/stable/2182236 Nicholas Rescher The Philosophical Review Vol. 64, No. 1 (Jan., 1955), pp. 108-114 Published by: Duke University Press

...the relationship between the concept of infinity and Zeno's paradoxes... https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:iDKhUmJk-w8J:commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Dombrowski-Oppy-infinity-and-the-neoclassical-concept-of-god.PDF+the+philosophical+concept+infinity&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj5FNu6cKPfOIScyqSYudZCArzUboqu1HK_b_XYokvQWoV9HID1T_s2VlD5I3-HA9ReI_LXNv8lhxO7yy9Bc8KOgdEVZmj1OskDKXvmTEeA5XaFm28JxFHZUxqZHUTX38MFU3-d&sig=AHIEtbR8HgINth1znlSXFHmE5-zNXt8kdw Oppy, infinity and the neoclassical concept of God - D.A.Dombrowski

The concept of infinity in Western and Eastern philosophies... https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:EoY5_nBSZ6UJ:www.uofr.net/~sam/history/infinite/katie.matt.pdf+the+philosophical+concept+infinity&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiclreQtZZNxyxhMi4YodI3VP8Y0wxQaYVbzl8qxzWT6B8jKtfOr-zQ1n8MTQBWYiMK6_LfDi8IoWOKQuL9KUiiXkJM7WofzwcURbPKyT6Yd07M1VHVhoPgcaHk82X-TzpjM3h8&sig=AHIEtbTxsVrDHRaqppnEqx57kHbbsJGgKQ

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25942-infinity-new-research-frontiers/ Notre Dame New Research Frontiers .... The concept of the Infinite... Michael Heller and W. Hugh Woodin (eds.), Infinity: New Research Frontiers, Cambridge University Press, 2011, 311pp., $99.00 (hbk), ISBN 9781107003873.

Drift chambers (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

first translation bears little resemblance formally to given (ἄπειρον)

Martin Heidegger the Anaximander Fragment David Farrell Krell Arion New Series, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1973/1974), pp. 576-626Published by: Trustees of Boston University Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20163348

Martin Heidegger Basic concepts http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ntczsA7GusAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=Anaximander&f=false Drift chambers Indiana University Press, 1998 Edited and Translated by Gary E.Aylesworth http://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/greek_ancient.htm

S. Marc Cohen, Patricia Curd, C. D. C. Reeve Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Aristotle http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pFEII68kmVsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ancient+greek+philosophers+original&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FBtbT8fOIqem0QWAp9jMDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ancient%20greek%20philosophers%20original&f=false Hackett Publishing, 11 May 2011

(talk) 10:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Mfp0gBvamG0J:www.unc.edu/~plmiller/docs/Phil528_Spring2007_Heidegger_Anaximander_GreekLexicon.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjei1h6NJHTyLz-VKCRZYFXbePKOcApLJkjbFEdRcmL9yGXs2cfLrEgnn-k6Ak0ZztqLTASMlmgrhMHfnKLdlafnhjUlTIpbuVsS4aUVyhha4M1FMNyg6LFTC-7mR3nULezhT40&sig=AHIEtbSbCgj2I3Go6lKIpX_dIJ5j2M8_-w

(talk) 10:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Giannis Stamatellos - Plotinus and the presocratics: a philosophical study of presocratic influences in Plotinus' Enneads (Google eBook) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0r0yH93JWOIC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=the+fragments+of+the+presocratics+Anaximander&source=bl&ots=UwnLtjcmN3&sig=KYC0-5GSthSfOAlNRcMWIaPwifg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gzlbT9e4IMqQ0AW-o9DQAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=the%20fragments%20of%20the%20presocratics%20Anaximander&f=false SUNY Press, 2007

ἄπειρον , TO ἄπειρον

(talk) 11:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

uncertainty

Jonathan Barnes The Presocratic Philosophers http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wrNzVF5julgC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=the+fragments+of+the+presocratics+Anaximander&source=bl&ots=6Pkn9O-q98&sig=SfthpYZDYDAqI6DggspDrnaLjww&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YjtbT7HxNKnT0QXazdHfDQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Anaximander%20said%20that%20the%20unlimited%20is%20principle%20and%20element%2C%20not%20distinguishing%20it%20as%20air%20or%20water%20or%20anything%20else%20(17%3AII.%20I%3DA%201%3Acf%20Aetius%20A%2014)&f=false & http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wrNzVF5julgC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=the+fragments+of+the+presocratics+Anaximander&source=bl&ots=6Pkn9O-q98&sig=SfthpYZDYDAqI6DggspDrnaLjww&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YjtbT7HxNKnT0QXazdHfDQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAzgK# Routledge, 1 Jan 2002

Gregory Vlastos, Daniel W. Graham Studies in Greek Philosophy: The Presocratics http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pdyX6LyXQa0C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=the+fragments+of+the+presocratics+Anaximander&source=bl&ots=0dOpUfZKTy&sig=DynrqLzvM_UyMlCHvVSxIJ43rH4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YjtbT7HxNKnT0QXazdHfDQ&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=infinite%20Anaximander&f=false Princeton University Press, 1995

Cambridge University Press, 24 Apr 1986 W. K. C. Guthrie A History of Greek Philosophy: The Later Plato and the Academy

infinite > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S_OSjXA-7U8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=infinite&f=false

apeiron + peras > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z2MVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq=apeiron+peras&source=bl&ots=1Bl5HXs2eI&sig=QxzLPVDlTFC1QQJBLkAUpXHidXM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5D1bT4OgH-So0QWghrHXDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=apeiron%20peras&f=false An examination of Plato's doctrines I. M. Crombie 0 Reviews Taylor & Francis, 1979 - 573 pages

(talk) 11:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The information below is study on reverting and editorial procedure Drift chambers (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from disputed edit 14:10, 27 February 2012‎ in Infinity (philosophy) > (Reverting to stable version as the article has become an indecipherable morass of terrible english, random quotes and content of unclear significance.) Drift chambers (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOC ...When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on...

WP:REVEXP In addition to helping the reverted editor, providing information regarding the reversion will help other editors by letting them know whether – or not – they need to even view the reverted version, such as in the case of blanking a page. Explaining reverts also helps users who check edit histories to determine the extent to which the information in the article is reliable or current.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; thus giving the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.

WP:IMPROVE > Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is.

Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information.

WP:IMPERFECT Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress.

...perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

WP:PRESERVE Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

WP:ER

WP:3 Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page.

WP:ASSIST

WP:REVEXP A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony. WP:V ...Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed... (written in second paragraph of introductory ) Verifiability....WP:CANTFIX

reversion > JohnBlackburne please goto > Drift chamber response Drift chambers (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Drift chambers (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Drift chambers (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not possessing sufficient competence to edit. I see no sign that you are capable of making valuable changes to Wikipedia. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 03:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...competency necessary to work collaboratively.... I don't see that any of the editors concerned actually have anything to contribute to the article infinity (philosophy), if so why did none of the other editors concerned make any additions to the article, why are none of the editors making any additions in my abscence. yet again no information on the Talk page, which contained information put there by myself, yet again reverted with criticisms of my behaviour and instructions to discuss on the Talk page that has had all the information added to it by myself reverted, on what grounds? with what reason?Drift chambers (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC) how to work collaboratively with editors that only revert and don't offer some direct instruction, guidance or input to the actual material content of the article. In my edits there was already some effort by myself to work collaboratively with the edits reverted by CRGreathouse, the counter-argumant of his/her observation in 19:22, 7 March 2012‎ provided in 14:35, 10 March 2012‎ Drift chambers (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

• Of the 5058 edits that you have made to articles, how many of them were not quickly reverted? You have been advised of the 5 pillars; you have been advised of the manual of style. No far, you cannot follow either. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do you know the number of revertions of 5058 because I don't. perhaps you'd like to provide some intelligence to an otherwise unknowing User such as to myself as to the actual number, unless the suggestion is that I go through and find how many were reverted which isn't itself proof of anything Drift chambers (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

show me where, the time and reason I was advised of these things, why it is that I was requiring to look into re-learning these things. Drift chambers (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the definition of incoherent is "expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way unclear" http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/incoherent

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution states Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. The claim of "incoherent" seems to be an indication of criticisms from within the yellow or orange of the pyramid, while my own writing seems most likely "Counter-Argument" or "Refutes".

The claim of social competence Where is this true of the situation ? >

As communication with this editor appears impossible, I've tried rewriting their edits in an effort to show them how it's done. But, aside from tidying an article, this has not worked.

where else has this not worked other than infinity (philosophy) , to which ClaretAsh provided no constructive changes only revertion ?

there has obviously been some mis-understanding as ...Drift chamber's speaking style... as this isn't possible, there aren't any voices being heard on this side of the computer screen only reading other editors writing, so isn't the correct addressing of the situation, how to address an editor who feels that someone is speaking when all that is occuring is print on a screen, there is no noise to hear. This seems like some attempt at Sounds something like of the pyramid or if not that then definately attacks the characteristics ... of the writer It's curious to think of how my own speaking style from the other side of a computer screen has any relevancy to the Nature of philosophical Infinity at all. Perhaps the editor chose poorly his/her means of communication.

Any way an editor with the focus appropriate for writing an article would put the minor errors of communication aside in the interest of article development.

In this example > [6] the communication seems adequate, as all person's within the section have understood each other, and no harm was done to article by myself. In [7] The only problem of communication is with the editor Claret Ash, infact ClaretAsh is the only person in this example having made an error of judgement. The problem is again resolved satisfactorily in any case. Drift chambers (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an effort to communicate with Claret Ash > 19:21, 10 March 2012‎ as a result of the previous ANI investigation, that was made by myself in order to improve communication and at least begin a process of dialogue to improve the article. No response has been sent, infact no effort made to communicate anything to this editor (myself) about the article content deleted from the article and placed in the talk-page as shown > here

Since all the information added to the article was reverted by ClaretAsh initially, on what grounds does the editor feel the actual information wis invalid ? The editor seems more concerned with my own behaviour than with the content of the material added by myself, which might have been adapted or re-added in a more satisfactory way, in his/her own opinion.

No effort has been made to communicate by Claret Ash about the content of the article, no effort has been made to engage myself with any argument or even to provide guidance on the subject of the article. this seems to be because the editors concerned don't know anything about the subject. Having done edits amounting to 400+ research on the subject, plus my own private research, this seems altogether un-balanced an outcome. In an effort to improve an article that has for nearly five years contained information that has been unreferenced and provides no referenced information as to Ancient Greek sources, in any way. Drift chambers (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are "Of particular note are the user's edits" in the articles El-Tod & Isaac Newton's religious views in what way are these particularly a mistake.

WP:IMPERFECT Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress.

...perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

Drift chambers (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are all the efforts to engage as directed by the previous ANI process > in Talk for other users [8] & [9] including the research from the article that having become reverted still contained some information of relevance so was placed on the Infinity (philosophy) Talk page. On what grounds has this now been removed plus, the categories placed on the article, of which no Counter-Argument or Refutation has been provided to against the evidence for their inclusion here. On what grounds is it necessary to remove the categories, on what grounds, with what evidence being used support their removal ? (other than an editor having personal characteristics criticised)Drift chambers (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Drift chambers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

decision is unfair, "I see no sign that you are capable of making valuable changes to Wikipedia". there are 6,154 edits still inplace, plus 136 articles created by User :Drift chambers, the decision is obviously a mistake, [10] [11] I would like to have some clarification as to how there has become a serious breach by myself anyway, of Wikipedia's policies to warrant indefinite blocking. I would appreciate some clarification as to what was done by myself that was inappropriate for this site, so as to confirm that I won't do it again What is the exact nature of my incompetence (Clearly, every editor is incompetent for some subjects, so it is important to know or discover your limitations).within Wikipedia:Competency is required ? please return a response that shows link(s) to Wikipedia policy my behaviour isn't true of Signs of disruptive editing in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing nor Disruption within WP:BP Drift chambers (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC) ...competency necessary to work collaboratively.... I don't see that any of the editors concerned actually have anything to contribute to the article infinity (philosophy), if so why did none of the other editors concerned make any additions to the article, why are none of the editors making any additions in my abscence. yet again no information on the Talk page, which contained information put there by myself, yet again reverted with criticisms of my behaviour and instructions to discuss on the Talk page that has had all the information added to it by myself reverted, on what grounds? with what reason?Drift chambers (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC) how to work collaboratively with editors that only revert and don't offer some direct instruction, guidance or input to the actual material content of the article. In my edits there was already some effort by myself to work collaboratively with the edits reverted by CRGreathouse, the counter-argumant of his/her observation in 19:22, 7 March 2012‎ provided in 14:35, 10 March 2012‎ Drift chambers (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Specifically, your userpage states that you are a native speaker of English, but your contributions to articles and article talk pages are frequently incomprehensible. I know you are not using a machine translator, as these can spell and you appear to have difficulty with this. Is there a reason why you are finding it difficult to marshall your thoughts in the English language? If so, others may be able to help. Also, you seem to be having difficulty working within Wikipedia's editing environment, which suggests that you may be having difficulties understanding the various written policies and guidelines. A mentor be able to help you contribute constructively. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Drift chambers (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a false argument by Claret Ash

Arbitration Committee > primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. 10:58

Why was I blocked? your account or IP may have been blocked because it appears to have been responsible for (or connected to) a serious breach of Wikipedia's policies. 10:51

5.It says I've been "indefinitely" blocked. What does that mean and how do I get unblocked? One common requirement for unblocking is simply "do you understand that what you did was inappropriate for this site, and confirm that you won't do it again". 10:52

To ask to be unblocked follow the instructions in the {{block}} template above. In particular use the {{unblock}} template yourself.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doublet (horse) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doublet (horse) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dionysis Vitsos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of any particular notability, in its present state it is more a promo page that a biographical article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Constantine ✍ 13:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kefa, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roland Degg, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Book of Traversing Eternity, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abolition of Slavery Act 1841, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Religious Writings of Isaac Newton, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drift chambers. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Kefa.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kefa}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drift chambers. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Roland Degg.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roland Degg}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drift chambers. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled The Book of Traversing Eternity.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Book of Traversing Eternity}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drift chambers. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Abolition of Slavery Act 1841.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abolition of Slavery Act 1841}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yehuda Meir Getz, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drift chambers. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Religious Writings of Isaac Newton.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Religious Writings of Isaac Newton}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drift chambers. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hasteur (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Drift chambers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reason

Decline reason:

The previous block is due to an administrator believing you have insufficient competence to edit, you will need to demonstrate that is no longer an issue. The fact you are now unable to use this account but did not explain this in your unblock statement below does not instil confidence that you now possess sufficient competence to edit. I'd welcome a much expanded rationale on why you should be unblocked and allowed to edit again, so consider this a sort of preliminary decline that can easily be reviewed and reversed in the next few hours or days. Nick (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

to begin:

the page i found this template on states :

"Requests for unblock is when a blocked user believes that his or her blocking from editing has been unjust and wishes to contest the block. It is often used when administrators make mistakes in policy, or maybe that that editor was involved in a dispute and was unfairly treated."

so, firstly; the template i used here was the only one i could find on this occasion, and secondly, it isn't my intention to discredit , or bring into question the acts of administrators. That i was blocked was an administrial descision, and therefore beyond my practical scope to understand. All i want to say is that, and to re-iterate (again) : my behaviour at that time was unacceptable, but at this time i would welcome mentoring and guidance on my editorial decisions. Also, that is the nature of my appeal, to bring to the attention of those powers concerned that, this editor is willing to change and understands previous (previous) mistakes, which he has no intention of continuing or making again.

so this previous User would welcome contributions from editors concerned and who ever else feels some thing needs to be added.

Thank you to those concerned, whatever the outcome, for your time and patience (which i hope will be given to this User) 109.204.66.81 (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing admins: Note that I have been in communication with Drift chambers via UTRS. Given that there block was partially based on an ANI discussion, that other admins had declined to unblock, and that nearly two years had passed since the block, I thought it would be best to have them post their unblock appeal here for discussion at AN. The user no longer has access to their old password, which is why they have not logged in. Other than volunteering to post their appeal at AN as a neutral party, I do not intend to participate in the unblock debate.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Nick. Thank you. I expect it will be in the next few days you will receive the rationale, rather than hours. 109.204.66.81 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me how your edits will differ from the edits you made shortly before you were blocked?—Kww(talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok,i have some idea of how, but i'll look into my edits now to see how i was behaving firstly, the details of that, and get back to you. Thanks 109.204.66.81 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---answer to your question Kww---

With respect to the Infinity(philosphy) article, i have identified at least one reason why it was happening during that editorial process > (from [12]) > Unintended consequences- “ ….. After working hard on one article for a long time, you may be less open to others' input….. “ I would at least endeavour to be more open to others and to discussion.

It is difficult to look at the evidence of my behaviour, particularly the three times i didn't engage in a talk page discussion, when requested by editors to do so.That kind of behaviour (repeated revertions of edits without discussion) certainly wouldn't happen again, and i was always happy largely to keep to having a reasonable attitude with respect to others being critical ( i think, hope) prior to that disagreement/mess.

Just to give a reason, i was anyway quite isolative at the time , in my personal circumstances, which is undoubtedly reflected in my editorial behaviour, but i have now a facebook account and skype contacts, so i have a more sociable existence, which should be a guard against such a single-minded a blinkered view of things occuring again.

As a matter of fact, I regret having become unreasonable at the end, but i just didn't feel it in me to make any discussion of it, since i didn't have a thourough knowledge of the subject,lacked the confidence for sure, and learnt information just prior to including this in the article. This is likely then > "Editing beyond your means" (from - [13] )being the case,though not forgetting also it is already acknowledged that, " …Clearly, every editor is incompetent when doing some types of edits in certain subject areas, so it is important to know or discover your limitations….”.

I don't really know how i would proceed if unblocked, i.e. at least which articles i would edit;i'm not looking to edit much at all in the near future, whenever i would begin again, would be just tentatively and with much more caution and less drive to achieve something at any cost.This attitude was true of my editing largely, but didn't prove to be significantly addressed in very many other articles by other editors (i've looked into the majority of articles i created and contributed to). In any case i don't need the stress, so will look to avoid taking risks, which will help avoid bringing about such a situation again. 109.204.66.81 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---additional information---

To provide evidence of my willingness to improve.....On this page > (Levels of Competence > [14]) I’d class my general editorial behaviour and understanding as a beginner, for sure.So i looked at the 5 pillars [15] ("...Seek consensus...", "Wikipedia is not....an indiscriminate collection of information...."). I read also these: "Our community is our biggest asset" ([16]),and " The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment." (from "Founding principles > [17])(and had to google search the meaning of the word collegial) 87.112.32.97 (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the -Levels of competence- question "What are some issues with the five pillars as chosen?";

right now, all i found to comment on is that, it was an impetus and supportive principle, to > "Be bold". Being bold is something which both supports and promotes effort, but also allows the chance of (repeated) mistakes. Also, i just thought, the directive to " Respect copyright laws" would be better if it were emphasised more, as a guidance, but that's just my personal feeling.87.112.32.97 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this and I will review. Please do not place any messages anywhere else on Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, I will begin blocking the IPs that you use.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok. 109.204.66.81 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, you previously wrote >messages anywhere else<, so i presume it is still acceptable to put something here, so, i thought to mention, with respect to my edits shortly before the block, i thought also you might want to know , the edit here > 23:32 10 March 2012 +13,803 < (and others like it), i see it was wrong as i added such a bulk to the article. I was in a great hurry to make additions for the benefit of my own self-esteem, but now i have made contributions (the articles i've created and made) elsewhere which have remained for the time i've been inactive in editing, so i think they will maybe be permanent additions. This means my need for this feeling, that i've made every possible constructive difference, isn't so great, and i will likely be able to wait longer to make changes, and take the necessary time to get it right, through discussion firstly, if necessary (if this is felt necessary). I've gone through nearly every article i've created and contributed material to, in order to check the reactions of later editors. If the list of possible errors i've made is of interest to you i could show this also, i've made every effort to include bad responses (there were definately three others, in the articles, Angelicall Stone, De Beneficiis, and Book of Traversing Eternity).87.112.32.97 (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this article > Tautavel Man, i provide as evidence of (probably/possibly) a more satisfactory editorial process and conclusion, (i suppose). 87.112.32.97 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Drift chambers. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Yehuda Meir Getz".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yehuda Meir Getz}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mathematics and Informatics Quarterly has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mathematics and Informatics Quarterly, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mathematics and Informatics Quarterly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematics and Informatics Quarterly (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Mathematics and Informatics Quarterly requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]