User talk:I.hidekazu

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello I.hidekazu, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Investigations into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your announcement!

But, I want some time (day) to read your long sentences because I have extreme difficulty imagining the meaning of a long text in English. I.hidekazu (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, Diannaa. Thank you for your editing in that page! I thought too much about your findings.
As I also wonder about a copyright of descriptions in such a explanation report, I should had gotten thoughtful. You have valid points for me. I'll write in myself words and structure as far as possible, in the future.--I.hidekazu (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your pre-latest edit of the Foundation of mathematics page appear to contain some interesting new reference, but I can not follow the sentence grammatically. Could you please clarify it? When you say "would be an adaptation" do you mean "is similar to" or "feels like an adaptation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimirias (talk • contribs) 12:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]: Your comment is also interesting for me. But I do not know all story and not have enough documents about Brouwer and Kant, too. I guess that I assumed anything (just conjecture for you) in the sentence. As I can not justify myself currently, your phrase will be better than mine. --I.hidekazu (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

一個人としてのお願いなんやけれども

マレーシアさま

前略

全く筋違いなところからなんやけど、自分の研究も進められないことにつながるもんやし、全く無関係であるわけでもないこって、こんなん書くんやけど。ストーカーの菌については、血気盛んなやけれども将来のある有望な若者だし、もう懲りとるだろうからここら辺で犬に噛まれたと思って手打ちにしてもらえんもんやろうか。どうせもうなんも出てこん。警察官も出てこんつもりやし、勘違いされても困るしこれもこの今回限りや。

こっちも変なストーカーにばっかり憑きまとわれとって、しかも大きな話しか反応しない妙にプライドだけ高いやつらで、情報戦略とかサイバーとかわけのわからん機器の使い方だけ詳しくて、脅しと床ドン以外なんの対処もできんのや。すでにこっちもだいぶいい迷惑しとるし、こんなん筋違いなんやけど、これ以上いくと勘違いするやつでてくるもんで、あくまでそっちの判断の話なんやけど頼めんもんかの。--I.hidekazu (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 代替現代科学史

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 代替現代科学史 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "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. Silver Master (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I simply forgot to add "/" at the beginning of the article name on purpose to make a local article in my name space. Thank you for delete my private draft note from the global name space. --I.hidekazu (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-realism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sontaku answer

1. What your(my) purpose?: I think modern mathematical physics is not valid. But it's too difficult to prove these invalidness. So, I planned to demonstrate it. My main purpose is to make a TYPED mathematical physics system like a typed programming language based on the intuitionistic type theory to do judgement (but it is just a concept in my mind). But the plan to make the system is a difficult concept to understand and accept. Therefore, I want to get big actual achievement as a theorist to make concerned interests hear my concept. That implicit imposition from the prime minister and Japanese media is made available to me. But those works were from hell. --I.hidekazu (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Do you mean that the armchair theory can automatically change doubtful physical results ?: NO. It's too good to be true.; To correct a doubtful physical experiment (no list. I'm not sure), anyone needs to report a clean explanation of the replication study without feeling restrained by academic social bonds, traditional human relationships and transitory international events. But I know that normal practical experts, with the social common sense, have essential hurdle. Since highly accurate measurement requires good experimental instruments, motivation and opportunity, it remains an intractable issue. --I.hidekazu (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]