User talk:ELDRAS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

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

Thank you for vandalising the Many-worlds interpretation! Welcome to wikipedia! --Michael C. Price talk 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I be a little less forgiving than Michael C. Price. Vandalism is grounds for blocking. --CSTAR 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your changes to Ulster

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ulster. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. FreplySpang 11:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You said, "My challenge is that it details nothing about economics nor industrial production, tourism, fisheries etc." Well, that's fair. However, when you added your information about economics etc., you accidentally removed a large amount of the article - see here. Thanks for your interest in expanding our coverage! Just please be careful not to remove existing material. Best, FreplySpang 03:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK apologies. But now there's no economics at all in Ulster?ELDRAS (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I see FrepySpang. Sorry a friend came round and demonstated how wiki worked when I was incedulous that if I deleted something by accident it would be corrected  & your bit was used.

I was sort of hoping tere would be an auto revert not requiring a human being and was puzzling the software program for that unsuccessfully!ELDRAS (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Quantum Archeology

I have nominated Quantum Archeology, 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/Quantum Archeology. 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. Sturm 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sturm. OK I've updated. It's my first everpage. It might be better as a stub if you can change it to that.ELDRAS (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the new version. --Sturm 11:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think savaging the newbie is a bad policy. I only put this up on the 7th and in a raw state.I feel like a mayfly who just hatched out over a pond of pyrana.ELDRAS (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, newcomers get bitten sometimes. It's not personal.
I also see that you've found the userfied version of it and have been working on that. PLEASE DO! That's why I saved it; I felt that it was a potential article with a bit of work invested. In the future I don't see why this cannot return to articlespace. Your contributions to it in its "work in project" area is both welcome and appreciated!
Thanks & thanks for saving it!ELDRAS (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And truly, Welcome to Wikipedia! • VigilancePrime • • • 07:35 (UTC) 12 Mar '08

[edit] Light computing

A tag has been placed on Light computing, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Nkrosse (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Was a test. apols. cheersELDRAS (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussions

Just to bring you up to speed on article for deletion discussions (AFDs). First of all, an AFD is not a vote, it's a discussion: the administrator who closes the discussion will not simply count the number of keeps vs deletes; he or she is expected to read the discussion in full, weighing the strength of arguments, applying content policies and so on. And by convention, the admin will not have been an active participant in the discussion (and no, there's no way of guessing who'll be doing it).

Secondly, the practice in Wikipedia is to not delete when no consensus has been arrived at. And that's a possible result here.

Thirdly, even if it is determined that the article should be deleted, it may be possible to challenge that decision. That would involve going to Wikipedia:Deletion review.

And finally, in reply to your comment about my "beliefs": a) you don't know what they are; b) they're not what I apply to deletion discussions. If the article on Scientology came up for discussion, I'd be arguing to keep regardless of my personal opinions of Xenu, because there's a lot of independent coverage about that organisation and its history. --Sturm 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

hi Sturm!

That a good theory, but how would you form your first word? I submit it would come from instinct, and your claim to be impartial is a delusion. One forms an opinion based on insticnt and then post hoc rationalises. If that dedection is false then you play around with logic until you get a resolution.

I was probably too harsh on you, I see clearly your laudable attempt to be impartial, but i stil require you examine your motive which would be do with an emtional reaction to the post which you could have ignored or asked a question about seeing easily I was a newbie.

I was pretty harsh back, but in mitigation I submit you savaged me unconscienably early.


That may be tradition and I am new.I see the article has been deleted and also some of the aguement has been deleted on the discussion page- that latter does surprize me. Not because some of it was ad hominem but because the ad hominem which I was responding in kind to, only much better, was left untouched.

Unlike the Americans...and yes your belief systems comes clearly across to me..we have the Rule of Law here, and not the possy.

However difficult that may be, there cannot be one law for some and a different one for another.

Moreover Law but be certain.

You are hardly impartial, though I know you aim to be.

for instance you niominated it for deletion yet edited the page, which is inconsistant.

I dont dilike you on the contrary it is enlightening for me to debate with you.

It's possible you are rigt and I shall reflect upon it.

Wel met Sturm, I hope your path is good for you ELDRAS (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is, that's why we need laws. Specifically, what constitutes the accpetance of a wiki article is nothing clear to me, on a very brief glimpse of them.

[edit] reply

Yes i appreciate that you are trying to be honest but sometimes your obvuous intellect trips you up. Besides, you knowas well as I do that the best minds are bias. Or one wouldn't be able to move. We are driven by our primary goal heirarchy, almost unaware of our unconscious motives. Me as well as you. That was why Freud was such a revolution denoueing it.

I should't have said you were consciously bias if I did, as that's not what I think. But dexterity with wiki protcols can be a toolery or an armoury and science is lettered with ideas that came to meme change and paradigm shift far too late, eg Babbage's work, Zuse's. Had we not been so conservative technolgy would have acclerated much faster eg had Babbge been funded in the diufference engine, computing would have advanced 50 years.ELDRAS (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More about deletion discussions

User:Master of Puppets is an administrator here. After five days of discussion, any administrator may review the arguments at an AfD page and decide what to do. This is called "closing the discussion". If you disagree, you can ask Master of Puppets for clarification. It's a good idea to familiar yourself with the process before you do this, so read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. You must not undo the closing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply Thankyou, Jitse Niesen, I wish you joy of your American encyclopedia and it's interesting rules ELDRAS (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed as a delete due to it being a fringe theory; while I'll admit that such prospects are very interesting, how interesting a subject is isn't a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you can back up your article with reliable, verifiable sources then feel free to recreate it; otherwise, please accept the resolution. Thank you, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • replyThankyou Master of Puppets. A simple Google of: Vlatko Vedral quantum archaeology and Vlatko Vedral quantum archeology in the British and American spellings respectively would have confirmed that this is a verified, verifiable and veritas accepted topic in modern science.I reiterate you are not intelligent enough to review the page which has indeed listed peer reviewed sources & I repeat my request you pass this to wiki person above you and stop wasting my valuable time.ELDRAS (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A Google search turns up nothing but a few lectures by two professors; see here. Same with the alternate spelling. This doesn't come anywhere near satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. Also, please keep personal attacks non-existent, and work a bit harder at maintaining a civil manner; acting the way you currently are will not help your matter. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


    • replyFor the third and final time, refer me to the wiki person one step above you.ELDRAS (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop demanding things and be more civil. Also, if you'd like your deletion to be reviewed, please see here. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that was my final request. ELDRAS (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see... Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds ominous. Enigma (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page archives

Don't start conversations anew in an archive. If you want to bring up an old topic, start up a new thread on my talk page; if you need to paste some of an old conversation in, do so, noting whence you got it in the edit summary. --Sturm 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)