User talk:AarCart

Welcome

Hello, AarCart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ckatz^chat _spy 20:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Ckatz^chat _spy 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visible spectrum

I reverted your addition there because

You haven't answered my edit summary "need reliable secondary sources on that; eye can see any intense radiation via non-linear processes" - wikipedia needs reliable secondary sources (reviews, books and alike) - that article is not available to most readers.
Eye can see any intense radiation via non-linear processes. Off course we can see Ti-sapphire laser. This doesn't alter the accepted visual sensitivity curve. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, you may be blocked from editing. Instead, please seek consensus from other editors that your material warrants inclusion. Ckatz^chat _spy 05:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that wikipedia relies on reliable and secondary sources. You heavily use primary sources which are not available to most readers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Valentin Koulikov

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Valentin Koulikov meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentin Koulikov. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

Despite my many references and valid points, you have not responded with much sense to my queries. I still have hope that the wiki community will see this discussion and join in with a spirit of objectivity. I want to take this oppotunity to mention once again that the whole point of placing Valentin's bio on wikipedia is simply to support the free sharing of information about ideas known to science. People deserve to know. Now, Valentin's biography is subject to debate despite my own info on the matter, but his ideas are not in dispute, and are very well referenced despite your incessant deletion of the sections mentioning them.

First off, Materialscientist, you said yourself that you are familiar with the facts regarding the human eye's visual perception of infrared laser light. Why is it then, that you delete this info. Do you not want other people to know what you and many other scientists are already aware of? Forgive me, but why is it necessary to wait for these facts to be published in books, when we have literally dozens of secondary sources including the ones I link on the page (the article contains a direct reference to the paper that originally stated and described the first occasion where the effect was observed.)I do not see any logical reason to remove this info from the article, because wikipedia editing must be based on common sense (as is stated in the pertinent documents) and not on editors' bias.

Secondly, Ckatz, you still have not replied with any detail or supporting evidence to any one of my questions or points regarding your deletion of several sections of the Time Travel wiki page. Once again, common sense would suggest the removed section (dealing with the fermi paradox solution as explained by the use of light speed among advanced civilizations) is as simple as 2X2=4. It does not require dozens of secondary sources or supporting evidence, only the mind of an attentive reader. The statement itself is well sourced and is not controversial. It is infinitely verifiable.

Thirdly, Valentin's bio should be decided by the readers of wikipedia and how interesting they find his ideas. It has nothing to do with the mainstream as described by the editors, or even their distance from reality. This gentleman is only one among very many scientists in this field of many generally controversial ideas (all of which are mentioned in other wikipedia articles already), and has sufficiently interesting ideas that they would be of service to any readers who are interested in time or space travel. --AarCart (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your last post on the Valentin Koulikov discussion, I think you're misunderstanding the basic criteria wikipedia uses for deciding whether a subject is "notable". You quoted the opening section from WP:BIO that said a subject must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", but this quote is not meant to imply that it's up to individual wikipedia editors to decide subjectively whether they personally think the subject is "significant, interesting or unusual", or whether they personally think the conclusions/theories of the subject are reasonable and logical. You need to pay attention to the basic criteria section that immediately followed the introduction (which I quoted in my own comment in the deletion discussion), which says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" So, you'd need to find articles not written by Koulikov himself, but by independent authors writing about Koulikov or his ideas, writing in sources that are themselves reliable. A self-published webpage like philica.com would not qualify as a reliable source even if it did contain such independent writings about him (not that I've seen any there)--it routinely publish fringe articles disputing mainstream scientific ideas, like this one, and anything submitted is instantly published (see the 'how does philica work'? section of that page) though it may later receive positive or negative reviews by others using the site (have any respected professionals in their field given positive reviews to Koulikov's articles?) See the wikipedia guidelines on self-published sources and also on scholarship, where they write The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. I'm pretty sure philica.com is a source that wouldn't show up on any of the well-known citation indexes. Hypnosifl (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Time travel, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)