User talk:&Delta

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, &Delta. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your test worked

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Seven Wonders of the World on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Caroline h thompson, to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Elenseel 02:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

Please stop blanking your talk page those warnings show other users that you have been warned and helps them take actionAFUSCO 02:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whoever "Elenseel" is (you don't allow emails and you don't have any info about yourself). since you don't identify yourself and cannot accept emails, why should i listen to you in particular? in any case, regardless of your personal interests, i will pursue formal permission to use relevant text from Caroline H Thompson. it should be obvious that i'm trying to honor her memory - not defame her in any way. i'm sure that i will obtain permission from the relevant personnel but it will be too late - ignorant people like you will have deleted the article before i can do that. enjoy your little sandbox because that's all it is - with your attitude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by &Delta (talk • contribs) 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline h thompson

I see you assert that this information is public domain, but an autobiographical website would not be public domain, unless specifically mentioned. Copyvio is enough for a 'speedy' deletion. There are also other issues that you may want to consider. The article needs reliable 3rd party sources that backup the notability of the subject. The article should use minimal quotes as well. I know that you would like to pay homage to this person, but please take the time to read WP:NOT as it may answer a few questions that you may have. Thanks! the_undertow ^talk 05:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Caroline h thompson

A tag has been placed on Caroline h thompson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 01:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature

AfD nomination of Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature. Thank you.

Please consider adding this material to WikiThesis instead. Wikipedia is not a web host to place your thesis on. Drdisque (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two types of editors

It would seem there are two types of editors (in my varied experiences with Wikipedia): open-minded and willing to help - and - closed-minded and ready to dismiss. Examples of both can be found above. The Five Pillars and Manual of Style are especially helpful to new contributors, but the latter is burdensome because of comprehensiveness. I find the many articles especially helpful in my research and understanding (my areas are physics and AI, but I have many interests). Occasionally, I will discover a minor problem in an article and attempt to correct it, but sometimes encounter the negative-type editor. This becomes tedious and boring. I am vehemently against engaging in an edit war because it's a waste of my time and energy. But, if something is important and I see a clear mistake, I will defend my right to correct an "established editor" and "put them in their place" civilly and respectfully. I think there is one critical error on the part of Wikipedia staff: if an editor is expert in one area, this does not make them expert in all areas. "Established editors" (those that are trusted and highly regarded within Wikipedia) DO make occasional mistakes in speedy deletions and "automatic" rejections of minor edits. I have experienced this several times. And it would seem Wikipedia has become a "good ol' boy" club: many feel important and "puffed up" similar to how academics frequently feel superior to others.. But it's all posturing and vain ego-defense in my opinion - which is really based on insecurity. Again - boring boring boring. My interests, with regard to Wikipedia, are to provide a high-quality resource for people of all ages and cultural backgrounds in line with The Five Pillars, make meaningful connections with other Wikipedians, and push the frontiers of human knowledge/understanding - by stimulating interest with the younger folk (I'm a high school science teacher at present). So, if we can create a resource that is useful to my students, I would be proud to participate! (So please go easy on your automatic/speedy deletions of my contributions!) sam micheal&Delta (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Consciousness

Please contact me by email if you want to discuss anything further, in order not to use talk pages for discussing your work. Don't take me wrong, people are desperately needed who would develop things like these, but first you should learn them much more.Tkorrovi (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Utopia are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please do not use Wikipedia as a means to promote yourself and your writing. There are other venues that are more appropriate for this purpose. Gimme danger (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here or talk for Higgs boson

talk pages are not only used for discussion about how to improve topics; talk pages are also used (in practice) to debate arguable things. they are also used for building topics and improving them. my following stuff belongs on the talk page for Higgs boson but if i put it there, most likely would be deleted considering the current mood of editors. what may look like 'promoting my theory' may actually be growth in the field. only time will tell. very soon, i will be vindicated or shown 'stupid'. i think it's worthwhile to post this both here and on talk: Higgs boson..

Higgsless Models Become More Attractive

GeV ranges for allowable Higgs: Theory: Supersymmetry models predict: 120-1000

 Corrections approach of SM: 129-285

Experiment:

                   Fermilab: 170+
                        LHC:    -1000+

So Fermilab has already excluded the lower range of allowable Higgs. This is significant. The higher experiment ‘pushes the range’, the less likely theory is correct. This means Higgsless models become more attractive. (Source of above data: Wikipedia, Higgs boson.)

Alternatives to Higgs:

Strongly interacting dynamics:
 Technicolor models
 Abbott-Farhi models
 Top quark condensate
Higgsless models:
 Moose models
 Z0+TC-VP-NL

The first set of alternatives is listed on the same source as above. The second set (first item) is from “Higgsless Models”, p407-427 of a Workshop on CP Studies.. by CERN published in ’06. The last alternative is ‘my baby’: impedance of space plus temporal curvature minus virtual particles minus non-locality. It is important to note: QFT contains QPT implies VP: quantum field theory contains quantum perturbation theory implies virtual particles. (Source: Wikipedia, Virtual particle.)

So the burden becomes: provide viable alternatives to VP and NL. Quantum chemistry provides a practical alternative: density functional theory. When implemented on computers, this approach satisfies both deficits. Multi-state systems and atom-atom interaction can be simulated with arbitrarily high precision. My proposal is that density functions represent space-time-averages of electron distributions. As was the problem from QM inception, we cannot observe individual electrons because any observation disturbs them. Also, individual electrons possess unknowable characteristics that can affect behavior. I propose an alternative to the SM electron: a non-local entity capable of sensing its ‘life-path’ environment. Viable alternative: a stable mini-dynamical system with an extended component that appears to cause self-interference. Also, symmetrical decay processes appear to exhibit non-locality. This is a fully deterministic and local theory without the need for virtual particles.

The Case for an Engineering Approach Toward Unification salvatore gerard micheal, 10/FEB/2009

Engineers must be practical otherwise customers will not buy their products and services. We are trained to be practical both by universities and experience. Our equations and models might not be the most elegant, but they work. They have to work from necessity. As physics is the core science, so systems theory is our core discipline. Systems integrates concepts across disciplines from electrical to pneumatic to mechanical. Control and linear systems theory play important roles in this. But so does the principle called the systems approach. It is essentially a set of four perspectives which may have to be invoked iteratively, recursively, or both: boundary, feasibility, reliability, and maintenance. It is a holistic principle, but it is more. It recognizes that brute reduction does not always work alone. It is an attempt to discover the synthesis in systems which produces more than the sum of the parts. It is an engineering attempt to utilize our creativity, intuition, insight, and inspiration to develop robust designs.

Typically, engineers and technicians work for physicists in creating machines such as the LHC (Large Hadron Collider). Incidentally, that machine may be the most expensive from human history. We appreciate the work and confidence you have in us. And in reality, we find the following essay most distasteful in practice. We regret to say that you may be ‘running a rabbit’ (chasing something that may not exist). The Higgs boson may not exist. In addition, the application of reduction so ubiquitously, such as with forces and virtual exchange, has caused physics to become sidetracked and lost in a forest of misapplied concepts and assumptions. Specifically, the concepts of virtual exchange, virtual particles, and non-locality have dragged the physics community down a path of confusion, wastefulness, and downright delusion.

We, as engineers, don’t know what a magnetic field is – but we certainly know how one behaves – and we certainly know it is not made of virtual photons. The magnetic field is real. To us, there is no such thing as virtual anything. The concept is an intellectual crutch for ignorance. To state otherwise is deception. We agree it may be a clever intellectual crutch, but a crutch is a crutch. Again, we are forced to be practical. We use the concept of impedance to denote the summary characteristic of media that determines its permeability and permittivity. It is not artificial. It is a practical concern. We cannot design RF circuits without considering impedance. Impedance is a fact of our practice and practicality. Further, we recognize a factor called the impedance of space, denoted Z0. This is a kind of base value, substrate, or baseline for all others. All permeabilities are gauged with respect to the permeability of space. All permittivities are gauged with respect to the permittivity of space. Therefore, all impedances are gauged with respect to the impedance of space. The impedance of space holds prime importance in engineering. It is a basic quality of space with the same importance as dimensionality. To insist otherwise is to deny reality.

We recognize that Occam’s Razor is a fundamental principle in science. Nature does not have to obey it, but we should. It states that: all things being equal, the theory with the least number of assumptions (the simplest theory) tends to be the correct one. It is the intellectual knife of science to cut away ‘fatty theories’ (fat being the theories with excessive assumptions). We employ it in this essay.

Let us restate the basic/core assumptions of convention (the Standard Model): 1. quantum self-interference is caused by non-locality 2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are exactly that 3. forces are caused by virtual exchange of force carrying particles

Let us state some plausible alternative assumptions more in line with engineering principles and determinism: 1. quantum self-interference is caused by extended portions of the standing waves comprising elementary particles 2. multi-state atoms/nuclei are actually different representations (distinct instances) of possible equivalent energy states 3. there are two distinct forces in our universe: electromagnetic and another ‘mediated’ by temporal curvature

Before we compare assumptions, allow me to discuss temporal curvature. Please allow me to copy-paste a section from a previous paper that was ‘less formal’ about the same subjects.

What is my explanation of the ‘weak force’? To me, there are three things that define a nucleus: vibration, rotation, and geometry/arrangement. What tends to rip/push apart a nucleus: electrostatic repulsion between protons. The only reason protons can ‘live’ near each other in such close proximity are because of the ‘adhesive force’ from neutrons and the three nuclear characteristics listed above. We don’t know when an unstable nucleus formed; we don’t know its geometry; we don’t know its rotation or vibration; we know nothing about internal characteristics of any particular nucleus. Therefore, it could decay at seemingly random intervals determined by: when it was formed and the three unknowable nuclear characteristics. To me, the ‘weak force’ is not a force – it is simply electrostatic repulsion combined with the four unknowable nuclear characteristics.

So, in a sense, I have just unified electromagnetism (in my own way) with the ‘weak force’. Step one .. Now we will unify the ‘strong force’ with gravity. I contend the strong force is not mediated by gluons. That’s an unnecessary artifice. The strong force is what I call: ‘near field’ temporal curvature. And gravitation is ‘far field’ temporal curvature. In the process of investigating ‘my model’ of elementary particles, I have discovered that gravitation can be modeled and described by ‘distributed temporal curvature’. We don’t actually need space-curvature to explain gravity. So this is why I said GR was a step in the right direction. The bottom line here is that distributed curvature ONLY IN TIME is sufficient to FULLY DESCRIBE gravitation. Again, virtual exchange of particles is not required. It’s unnecessary. Temporal curvature is minimally sufficient to explain ‘strong force’ and gravitation. Of course, you need a function (math description) to describe the exact radial curvature with respect to a proton/electron. Many conventionalists would balk at this point: “That’s artificial! That’s more assumptions!”, but I contend – less than theirs.

At this point, we have unified ‘electro-weak’ and ‘strong-gravity’. Can we go further? I contend they are fundamentally different and so – we cannot. Electro-weak is based on electromagnetism. Strong-gravity is based on temporal curvature. They are fundamentally different things. Is there some energy level where they appear the same? That’s like saying: you’re juggling apples and oranges – the faster you juggle them – the more they appear like a blur of apples and oranges. But that does not change the fact they are DISTINCT and very DIFFERENT fruit.

As far as requirements to ‘stretch the imagination’, isn’t 5 better than 11 dimensions? One universe vs many? Temporal curvature and photons vs 5 virtual particles? Instances of equal-energy states vs multi-state systems? Extended waves vs non-local particles? The latter requires you to stretch and Stretch and STRETCH your imagination beyond rationality. The problem with ‘physics of today’ is not just reduction and fantasy – but ‘back patting’ and reward for promulgating the status quo. As long as you reinforce convention, your ‘research’ will be rewarded with either money, accolades, or status (or all 3). That’s why I will never be funded, praised, or recognized for proclaiming the truth – I threaten the illegitimacy of conventional physics.

That ends my copy-paste from the previous paper. Of course, there are deeper assumptions hidden within both sets of three above. The paragraph just above attempts to address those. Convention knows better than I the full account of assumptions and parameters associated with the Standard Model. The assumptions and general specifications of parameters associated with this engineering model are listed above. There is one however that is not: hyper-time. It is the quality of space-time which must exist for this model to be real.

This engineering model of our universe is assumed to be sufficient to describe elementary particles and their interactions. It is based on: 3 dimensional Euclidean space, the impedance of space, temporal curvature, and hyper-time (which allows temporal curvature). If this model is correct, we live in an exceedingly simple and elegant universe where elementary particles are dual manifestations of energy residing in an extended ‘electromagnetic wave packet’ and localized temporal curvature.

We, the undersigned, representing the engineering community, challenge the physics community to an ‘intellectual duel’: develop a simpler, more concise, more elegant, and more realistic model of our universe. We appreciate the business and confidence associated with projects such as the LHC, but we feel resources are better spent on projects more aligned with reality and needs of humanity.

salvatore gerard micheal, micheal at msu dot edu&Delta (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Micheal space

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Micheal space, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Original research, appears to be repost of AFD'd essay WP:Articles_for_deletion/Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature, unreliable references

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MuffledThud (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Wikipedia

Hi &Delta, I've seen a few of your recent posts, and I worry that you may not completely understand Wikipedia's purpose. Essentially, Wikipedia wants to have articles on subjects that have been written about in independent, third-party reliable sources—and the articles should contain a good balance of the opinions that are contained in those independent, third-party reliable sources. Articles are absolutely not supposed to contain original research, which includes synthesizing causation, etc from those reliable sources. If a subject hasn't been written about in independent, third-party reliable sources, then it probably shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia; if an opinion is held by only a small subset of sources, it may not get much coverage on wikipedia - it would be considered a fringe theory.

These rules are absolutely not meant as a way for Wikipedia to make a judgement call on whether the information is correct or not, or worthwhile or not. The guidelines exist precisely to keep from making those judgement calls; instead, Wikipedia has chosen to rely on a survey of what reliable sources deem appropriate to be covered. This likely means that Wikipedia is not at the cutting edge of information, but that is okay - most encyclopedias are not, and this is a choice that Wikipedia has made.

However, even if information shouldn't be included today because it hasn't been published by a reliable source, that doesn't mean it can't be included in Wikipedia next month after it's written up in a journal or newspaper. (I know of at least one case where an overzealous editor actually interviewed an author to fill in gaps on the author's Wikipedia article - her notes were not considered a reliable source and could not be included in the article until she was able to interest a newspaper in publishing the interview.) If the reliable sources don't cover a topic and you think they should, then the appropriate step is to work to get those sources to provide a certain level of coverage. THEN, the information can be readily included on Wikipedia.

I wish you luck here, and hope that you find a way to contribute within Wikipedia's policies/guidelines. If you have any questions about how to meet the guidelines, feel free to ask on my talk page or that of any other experienced wikipedian. Karanacs (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

will agents ever say "Please let me out of here

Hi &Delta, I deleted that section because it violates the Talk page guidelines, specifically the section "Keep on topic": "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." (my emphasis). At the top of the page you'll find "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.". I understand the urge to discuss things one cares about, but please remember that the talk page is a workplace for discussing editorial decisions. Regard, Paradoctor (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Quantum realism

The article Quantum realism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Utter drivel. Fails WP:FRINGE. Oddly enough no reliable sources either.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Quantum realism, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not try to use wikipedia to promote fringe theories. We have all sorts of rules about that and you have already been advised to read them. andy (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dearest andy, this is your first comment copied-pasted: "Utter drivel. Fails WP:FRINGE. Oddly enough no reliable sources either." and your latter comment: "Please do not try to use wikipedia to promote fringe theories." and from your own user page: "This user has a Master of Arts degree in Philosophy." .. i was wondering, how does having an MA in philosophy allow you to be an expert on 'fringe theories' in physics? .. just wondering.. another thing, it's not fringe - it's actually conservative .. but i guess you wouldn't know that with an MA in philosophy.. what else, your behavior toward my article would be considered 'trolling' on other forums.. so dare i label you a troll since you seem inclined to label me 'fringe'? ^^ labels are not very productive especially when they're inaccurate.. if i were you, i would consult some experts about what is considered fringe in physics.. ..just a suggestion for your future reference..&Delta (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Quantum realism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quantum realism 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/Quantum realism 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. andy (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dearest andy

i could not see how to contact you directly so plz forgive me posting on your talk-page with the information i wanted to write you 'offline' about..
since you have an MA in philosophy, plz allow me the assumption you're actually interested in philosophy ;)
i have written some 'popular articles' about our 'nature of existence' and 'reality' which u might find interesting :)
one thing i think u likely misunderstand about me - i would LIKE to be proven wrong..
but i consider it highly unlikely..
plz visit the following websites that are related to this discussion.. feel free to comment on those pages directly - any refutations you feel are worthy of your rebuttals :)
truly, we would welcome your input on NowPublic - a kind of user-generated forum/news source
an article on Jesus and Judas.. not for the 'weak of heart' ;)
an article on the 'politics of science'.. requires an open mind - WARNING!
an article somewhat inspired by Bell's theorem.. again, requires an open mind and willingness to consider things 'more conservatively'
a very brief article about cosmological theories
you might like this article on 'the nature of reality'
and one on superdeterminism
and finally one on temporal relativity..

again, plz forgive any seeming 'denigration' in my previous comments.. you know, when someone attacks you, a person has a tendency to 'lash back' .. i try my best not to do this .. i didn't really take your comments personally .. truly .. i take your comments as conventional insecurity .. they've made a Huge business of investigating the Standard Model over the years - such as 'search for the Higgs' but .. some serious gaps have evinced themselves over the years - such as - no Higgs detected .. they're closing the 'detection gap' very soon .. it's not just the Higgs .. gravitational waves have not been detected yet .. we're spending more and more on these searches .. i agree - they're ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED .. but .. once we find out - they don't exist, we need viable/feasible models which provide alternative explanations for observed phenomena .. we cannot simply 'revise the model' if the model is based on incorrect assumptions .. 'my' ideas (as you and others seem so keen on labeling them) have been around for many years .. they're not new .. they're certainly NOT fringe .. they're ideas convention has dismissed because they don't jive with conventional assumptions .. but, since you're a philosopher - u should be able to appreciate this logic: if their assumptions are incorrect, then there needs to be ones not incorrect/infeasible proposed to replace them. the ideas i have proposed have been previously dismissed by convention for historical reasons: religion and 'the ether' .. but in reality - i argue against religions domination over the concept of God and associating automatically 'impedance of space' with 'the ether' .. both associations are inappropriate. religions don't own God; impedance is not the same as 'the ether'.

i hope you can read the articles mentioned above with an open mind.. sam (this section was deleted from user-editor's talk page andy) he/she said "thanks but no thanks" as deletion remark..&Delta (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

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. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite topic ban

You are now banned indefinitely from creating or editing articles on theoretical physics. Your activities in creating and editing articles based on your own ideas have been disruptive to the encyclopedia. You are free to contribute to other articles on Wikipedia and take part in discussions on theoretical physics talkpages. You may apply at any time for this ban to be lifted but in order to do so you will need to demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia:Core content policies. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for the publication of original research, however clever or brilliant it may be. As such it is a tertiary source compiled mainly from notable and verifiable secondary sources. Should you get your research published in recognised scentific journals the situation may be different. However, your own blog publications will not be sufficient. You may apply to me or at ANI for reconsideration of this ban at the appropriate point.Should you edit or create theoretical physics articles in defiance of this ban you run the risk of being blocked. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]