From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Dankal.naveen! 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 clicking  or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ShepBot ( talk) 01:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
Getting started
|
|
|
|
Getting help
|
|
|
|
Policies and guidelines
|
|
|
|
The community
|
|
|
Writing articles
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Two Neutrons do not have coumbic repulsion.pdf
Thanks for uploading Image:Two Neutrons do not have coumbic repulsion.pdf. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tikkiwont for putting forth my case.I appreciate your generous step!!
[edit] Heisenberg Scientific Methd
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Heisenberg Scientific Methd. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. I've proposed it for deletion. Before contesting please take into account that the artcile on Gulienski's book has already been deleted. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify as there has been added a tag by an IP. As far as I see, what you call a 'viewpoint' is meant above as 'novel synthesis'. While our term 'Original research' is not the same as e.g. in science. The above linked policy reads: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences." In any case, if upon further reflection you come to the conclusion that your essay is apt, you should remove the prod tag. I would then bring this up for a deletion discussion. Otherwise you can also ask yourself for deletion with {{db-author}}. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Heisenberg's Scientific Method
I have nominated Heisenberg's Scientific Method, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's Scientific Method. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blueboy96 17:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely as a
sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:W.GUGLINSKI. To contest this block, please reply here on your
talk page by adding the text {{unblock|
your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from
this list.
Raymond Arritt (
talk) 18:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "first of all i would like to thank the administrators for giving due attention to my article (though it has been pointed out somewhere that its not an article, its an essay.I am still trying to figure out the difference).It has also been pointed out that I am Wladimir Guglinski and just using a fake id and acting as a sock puppet.Well, I can only make out that perhaps the commonality of opinions of Wladimir may have lead to such a thing.Its a world of freedom of expression where if i enjoy claiming that "I believe in God", someone should have an equal right to say that 'I don't believe in God'. I have gone through Wladimir's book (whose title I dare put here for it might lead to another violation of wiki rules of advertising a product) which was not available in India until last year and I have an agreement with a few of his works which are deep-rooted in some of the facts overlooked during the course of scientific development.If tommorow a third person gets influenced to think in the same direction and finds that his direction of thoughts are backed up by solid historical proofs and happenings, would he be blocked too simply because his ideas on the fundamental principles of science does not match the majority class but only a minority and would all of such like-minded people belonging to such a minorty but having a common understanding be termed as sockpuppets?I do not want to sound rude here or hold anything against the deletion of my article, but yes I am here to thank wikipedia for whatever "short-lived" association I had with it and would like to turn it into something meaningful"
Decline reason: "User is a sockpuppet of banned user User:W.GUGLINSKI - see AN/I discussion. —Travistalk 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "I might be sharing thoughts, facts and figures with others including the banned members but that simply doesn't imply i am a sockpuppet.Somewhere it is being pointed out that I am Wladimir.I found this proposition absolutely baseless and ridiculous.The article can be deleted but it's being done for all the more funny reasons for which it is pointless to argue and waste time upon.People proposing for deletion do not appear to be sure of themselves."
Decline reason: "I concur with the assessment at [1]. — Sandstein (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
{{unblock|Sorry if I, in any way,sounded rude in my previous request.I would just like to humbly request the administrators about the way in which I can prove that I am not Mr. Wladimir Guglinski and that I am not his sockpuppet either.I have shared a couple of thoughts with Wladimir (and others) on Orkut where I own a community named "Grand Unification Theory".Can I give the link to that community as refernce?This might prove I am not Wladimir!Can I please be enlightened by the administrators as to what all criterion might resolve my "blocked status".Your feedback shall be duely appreciated.}}
 |
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
As already said at the above linked ANI thread, while I see why some colleagues have taken you for Waldimir Guglinski, I didn't think so and find your explanation plausible. The core policies about wikipedia that he found difficult to accept are to be respected in any case.
Request handled by: Tikiwont (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
|
[edit] Heisenberg's Scientific Method
Hi there. If you'd like to make this into an article, it's often a good idea to create it in your userspace first, hash out the details and clean it up, then copy and paste it into mainspace. You can create your own personal sandbox by going to your userpage, then in the address bar, simply add a backslash and the word sandbox (like this: /sandbox) and hit enter. It will ask you if you want to start the page. Here, you can add your article text and in the meantime, please read the following to get up to speed on Wikipedia policies:
Hope this helps. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Heisenberg's Scientific Method
I have nominated Heisenberg's Scientific Method, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's Scientific Method (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blueboy96 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
