User talk:Figure8state

Welcome!

Hello, Figure8state, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as The Resonance Project, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Gbawden (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Figure8state (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to explain Gbawden. I posted this response to Tokyogirl79 and have also posted here for you. I would also like to request your assistance in gathering and presenting the materials for Wikipedia entries as outlined below.[reply]

I have no affiliation with The Resonance Project aside from Nassim Haramein's lectures giving some validation to ideas I have been thinking about for a long time, but for which it has been hard to find reliable information about. At times the subject seems to have been suppressed by the science establishment either purposefully or just out of hubris, and anyone discussing the subject publicly ridiculed. Either way it's "flat-earth society" type behaviour that I find objectionable.

I understand your points but disagree, particularly on the notability aspect. I can easily find scores of entries regarding subjects of less notability than The Resonance Project on Wikipedia. I am suspicious of the motivation to so quickly suppress my expression of free speech in this so called "community". Instead of offering a chance for me to bring my article into compliance with Wikipedia standards you quickly deleted it, and by doing so silenced my opinions. Thats wrong. And although a comment made by another editor stated that I had a chance to contest the "Speedy Deletion" I could find no such option.

When you have notability thresholds for a supposedly public community which rely on mainstream media to set the bar, and the mainstream media is owned and virtually controlled by a few select individuals and organizations with their own agendas, then you have a problem. Wikipedia you have a problem, and if I can't get entries for "Nassim Haramein" and "The Resonance Project" in I am going to begin a campaign to discredit and inform of the corruption of Wikipedia, the not-so-"free" encyclopedia. (or really just add my voice to the growing dissent that is out there already). Wake up Wikipedia editors...open your eyes and minds and be a force for good in the world, not another puppet.

This new field of spiritual science or Unified Physics, whatever you want to call it, is an important subject and needs to be represented in the sphere of social consciousness whether you agree with it or not. There are thriving social media communities of 300,000+ individuals on both The Resonance Project and Hassim Harramein's Facebook pages, and yet Wikipedia via it's ignorant (sorry it's true) editors quickly dismiss as not notable. It's notable enough for 300,000 people to include the information provided by Nassim Haramein and The Resonance Project in their social media feeds, who are you to dismiss so many people's opinions? 300,000 people think about that.

If I gather the neccessary information would you be willing to help me organize it in such a manner as to pass muster of the Wikipedia editorial drones?

Best Regards,

J

Speedy deletion nomination of The Resonance Project

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Resonance Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gbawden (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I thought I'd explain why I deleted the page. Ultimately the page had two major, major flaws that caused me to go for deletion.

The first is that throughout the page you repeatedly quoted various sources, both WP:PRIMARY (meaning anything released by the Project or its affiliates) and secondary. While not technically a copyright violation since you are quoting them instead of passing off the quotes as your own, this does come across as fairly promotional in nature, especially when you quote things like "by conducting research in the field of Unified Physics, developing technologies and applications that apply these discoveries, providing educational opportunities, and inspiring others by acknolowedging and modeling our interconnectedness, interdependence and infinite nature in how we work, teach and explore together with integrity and compassion for all life." Even if you're quoting them, filling the article with quotes like this is still seen as promotional in tone. I do have to warn you about copyright violations since an editor did remove a paragraph that was a direct copyright violation from the official website. Copyrighted material cannot be posted "as is" to Wikipedia and it must be re-written in a neutral tone in your own words.

The second reason is that ultimately I couldn't see where the Project passes notability guidelines. You listed this article, but it does not mention the Resonance Project by name. It mentions the director, but not the Project itself and for many this would be a WP:TRIVIAL source at best since it doesn't mention the Project, the film itself is only briefly mentioned, and the article is predominantly about the IndieGoGo/Vimeo partnership. Some may not even really consider it usable since it doesn't mention the Project at all. A good usable article would be a source that is independent of the Project, in a place that is considered to be reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:RS and would pass muster at WP:RS/N, and goes into depth about the Resonance Project.

I also have to ask: are you affiliated with the Project in any way, shape, or form? If you are then you need to read over the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI. You can edit with a conflict of interest, but it is discouraged because of how easy it is to take things more personally when you're writing about something to which you are attached. I'm mentioning this mostly because I noticed that you got somewhat defensive on your userpage after the article was tagged with several concerns. The tags on the article (which were done before it was tagged for deletion) were valid concerns and they are based in Wikipedia policy that was created after years and years of consensus due to people coming on to Wikipedia and misusing it for various means. This isn't meant to be taken as my saying that you were doing this, just explaining why the policies are in place. I can understand your frustration, but writing on your userpage that people are close minded, that they're wrongfully repressing information, and ignorant are not good ways to go about arguing your viewpoint. Not only does it make us more defensive, but it also gives off the impression that you will not be open to compromise or discussion at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Figure8state (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to explain Tokyogirl79. I have no affiliation with The Resonance Project aside from Nassim Haramein's lectures giving some validation to ideas I have been thinking about for a long time, but for which it has been hard to find reliable information about. At times the subject seems to have been suppressed by the science establishment either purposefully or just out of hubris, and anyone discussing the subject publicly ridiculed. Either way it's "flat-earth society" type behaviour that I find objectionable.[reply]

I understand your points but disagree, particularly on the notability aspect. I can easily find scores of entries regarding subjects of less notability than The Resonance Project on Wikipedia. I am suspicious of the motivation to so quickly suppress my expression of free speech in this so called "community". Instead of offering a chance for me to bring my article into compliance with Wikipedia standards you quickly deleted it, and by doing so silenced my opinions. Thats wrong. And although a comment made by another editor stated that I had a chance to contest the "Speedy Deletion" I could find no such option.

When you have notability thresholds for a supposedly public community which rely on mainstream media to set the bar, and the mainstream media is owned and virtually controlled by a few select individuals and organizations with their own agendas, then you have a problem. Wikipedia you have a problem, and if I can't get entries for "Nassim Haramein" and "The Resonance Project" in I am going to begin a campaign to discredit and inform of the corruption of Wikipedia, the not-so-"free" encyclopedia. Wake up Wikipedia editors...open your eyes and minds and be a force for good in the world, not another puppet.

This new field of spiritual science or Unified Physics, whatever you want to call it, is an important subject and needs to be represented in the sphere of social consciousness whether you agree with it or not. There are thriving social media communities of 300,000+ individuals on both The Resonance Project and Hassim Harramein's Facebook pages, and yet Wikipedia via it's ignorant (sorry it's true) editors quickly dismiss as not notable. It's notable enough for 300,000 people to include the information provided by Nassim Haramein and The Resonance Project in their social media feeds, who are you to dismiss so many people's opinions? 300,000 people think about that.

If I gather the neccessary information would you be willing to help me organize it in such a manner as to pass muster of the Wikipedia editorial drones?

Best Regards,

J

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely, why?:

Because, you do not have freedom of speech on private property - which this website is. Your freedom of speech only protects you from persecution by the government. You have no protection from fellow citizens telling you to go shove it
Because, your only purpose here is to spam
Because, you threw a tantrum when your article was deleted
Because, you made vague threats to get your way - as if no one in the world has thought to "discredit" Wikipedia. Feel free to make a fool of yourself
Because, you cannot delete your account - best you can do is WP:VANISH

Feel free to pick any of these reasons. You're done here.--v/r - T P 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Figure8state. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]