User talk:Michael Francis Lidman

Welcome!

Hello, Michael Francis Lidman, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Prime number addition, 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! BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Prime number addition

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 Prime number addition 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. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Prime number addition

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 Prime number addition 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. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 23:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you recreated Prime number addition after it was deleted for having insufficient context to identify the subject of the article? BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 23:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sum of prime numbers

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 Sum of prime numbers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and 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.

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. Melcous (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Addition of prime numbers

The article Addition of prime numbers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a how to guide.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prime numbers article suggestion

Hi, thanks for writing this! I'm sorry, but it doesn't look quite right for Wikipedia because it looks like a how-to guide or a lesson plan. Wikipedia already has an article proving that prime numbers are infinite and I don't really see that this needs to be separate to that. You might want to take it to Wikiversity, Wikipedia's sister site here, which takes lesson plans and guides. Blythwood (talk)

Nomination of Addition of prime numbers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Addition of prime numbers 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/Addition of prime numbers 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Addition of prime numbers. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of prime numbers

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Addition of prime numbers, and it appears to be a substantial copy of https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/Addition_of_prime_numbers.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Addition of prime numbers

A tag has been placed on Addition of prime numbers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi! It seems to me that you're trying to get some publicity for this article you've written about addition of prime numbers, seeing how you've posted it several times already. It's been deleted each time because it's not within Wikipedia's scope. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a comprehensive compilation of verifiable material from published sources, not a place for new ideas to be presented. I would suggest you get a blog or something like that for yourself and post it there. You might think that won't get as many views or as much credibility, but most Wikipedia articles don't get very many viewers, especially short ones and ones with few incoming links (a lot of mine don't even get more than one view per day). Anyway, Wikipedia is not the right place for it. I wish you the best of luck. If you ever need anything, feel free to drop a message at my talk page. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 05:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to E-democracy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: E-democracy was changed by Michael Francis Lidman (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.965627 on 2016-06-06T00:10:38+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to E-democracy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: E-democracy was changed by Michael Francis Lidman (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954803 on 2016-06-09T21:18:55+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Michael Francis Lidman

A tag has been placed on User:Michael Francis Lidman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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. Melcous (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

I, Michael Francis Lidman from Merrimack New Hampshire, made all the edits myself. Wikipedia seems to be working as if I'm a problem, as if some users are having some, shall we say "fun". There is no real reason why the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot_NG accepted a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.231.40.122 from labelling an edit that I had made to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy as vandalism.

Now I have my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Francis_Lidman page and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melcous for U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia. Now as a web host for my own self, Michael Francis Lidman from Merrimack New Hampshire, I put what I wanted there. There was nothing overly anything as far as a human can tell. I doubt it was larger than 10K of space as it was just text, which I copied to my own computer and posted all over the place and essentially took over Wikipedia!!!... Now, now, I'm asking for the reader to use their mind and think about what really constitutes a speedy deletion needing text made by the very user who the page is named after, and I just wonder why Wikipedia is working this way.

I have seen entire pages on the sacredness of life from death to beginning in seconds changed to kill the baby from the instant of the beginning of life as fertilization to just before birth. At 3 years old my daughter could recognize memories that seemed to come from her time inside her mother. Is this site realistic? Is this such a site that realistic analyzation of a subject can simply be deleted over and over again until that person is disallowed to write in the same place. You aren’t that bad are you. You don't allow users who are so that they fight for the rights of those who can be known as murderers, do you?--Michael Francis Lidman (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at E-democracy, you may be blocked from editing. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 04:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ebe123, The reason behind the idea of Intelligence rights is we do not know what we are facing come the future and what we should think of right now. E-democracy does not look like something that can be kept to one country. But everywhere were there is internet there is The E-democracy. It should be obvious by my edit that every point is backed up on Wikipedia. If you some how believe that the United States can keep E-democracy within it's boarders you are mistaken, if by only a lack of imagination I guess. From the List of potentially habitable exoplanets it looks like there are at least 7 (yes I was wrong about there being only 4) out of some odd 3000 planets that are conservatively like Earth. I hope you can guess how many Earth like planets there must be in our 100 to 400 billion sun Galaxy or the 200 billion galaxy Observable Universe. Some say there are around a Sextillion (10 to the 21st power) Earth like planets in our Observable Universe. I hope you can find your own estimate as it's more convincing than looking at someone else’s math. That I said there were 4 earth like planets should show you just how unreliable I am.

If you think that there is nothing alive in space then you are missing the List of microorganisms tested in outer space and that Earth and Theia_(planet) crashed into each other and made our Moon. Only 500 million years our planet had life and a Moon we know has the same rocks as Earth and so came from that crash. You should also note that the Moon is the same size as the Sun from Earth's perspective producing a total Solar eclipse and a partial solar eclipse. I have no idea why there isn't enough going wrong with the common opinions that even mentioning the observations that put such ideas into a sort of mix.

Even if somehow the world is not how we should at least hold as a guess, we are looking at computers continuing to gain power and speed what the programming that is being inspired by research into the brain is growing at such a pace that in 15 years might have us see a regular pc with the power from the addition of the Memristor and the List of emerging technologies and a scientific view of the human brain that we will have a human-computer on our desks and a supercomputer with the power of the entire human race estimated by Moore's law.

If you think that what I have to say is vandalism then you are missing the political games being played with E-democracy#Human_rights and the 6 year old quote from Hillary Clinton. Not that I know everything about her. But this reminds me of the New World, world this, world that that lost World War II. Not that Hillary Clinton is Adolf Hitler. It's just stupid to have one president of all when E-democracy is about us all being our own president in effect.

I don't been to be pointed or mad or anything. I've been smiling while I write this thanks to the emotion of love causing happiness as it is a broad word and a good word for describing positive emotions. Ebe123, I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with your idea of deleting the whole thing. I just don't know why you can't take the links and put it together in your own head that this is what we should be planing for. So your talk of Vandalism seems kinda off to me. I see you do a lot on Wikipedia, but why to you put nicely. I'm just trying to figure you out, such a negative opinion on something that probably should have been edited instead of deleted. Just saying. --Michael Francis Lidman (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How things work on this site

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, we do not accept numerology or notarikon or false cognates as the basis for claims in articles.

Ian.thomson (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Isis for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Autocopy

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 that Autocopy, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. 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. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Michael Francis Lidman

A tag has been placed on User:Michael Francis Lidman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Autocopy

Hello Michael Francis Lidman,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Autocopy for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:Oshwah, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (It's kinda prejudiced. I think she has a problem with me being so write. Is their any point? You do get the Euclid problem, right? You know, the point is that which has no part. How many points make up a string? Isn't a person just that which has an interior? Didn't Socrates allow himself to be murdered because he figured he'd just be experiencing the all (formally known as the universe)? This lady must be like most of the Jews or an uneducated atheist. Take an applied math class. Conservation works no matter how many dimensions of whatever type physics likes to bring up. The professor said "The Big Bang is Big Bunk. How large is the Observable Universe again?") --Michael Francis Lidman (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: I'm male, and I have a decent understanding of math and science. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about your external sex. Internally you are crazy. All woman are crazy. All men are stupid. Men are stupid because woman are crazy. All woman are crazy because all men are stupid. From George Carlin. Also to call you a girl is a complement. World wide women live 5 years longer on average. I want to be a woman if for no other reason. Only 9.2% of billionaires are woman. Women don't need to make money. All they have to do is peruse though men to find one who makes more money or has potential to make more money than the other guys. If you want a wife you have to be the financially logical choice. I was obviously joking and for a very mathematical reason. Instead of fixing up the page in it's many obvious ways you sat on your ass and deleted it. That is a defect. The answer is to defect against you till you cooperate. If you knew more math you would laugh.

Oh, and that removal of your bottom ribs is actually a good idea. Because we stand upright we no longer need those ribs and you will find that without those ribs you can give yourself a blow job.

I mean, don't you think the Adam having his rib removed to make Eve was a kinda hint hint from poetry? Isn't there like an estimated sextillion planets habitable as earth in our observable universe? Whatever it is, it's a big number. For example, planet earth got smacked by Theia (planet), a mars sized planet some 4.3 billion years ago. That's where the moon came from. Which isn't it interesting that from earth the moon and sun look like they are about the same size, sometimes large, sometimes smaller. But it took almost no relative time for earth to have water and then life. Isn't life just a property of matter and time? I mean they have simulations of long molecules that stick together top to top and bottom to bottom. The bundle grows in a circle but since one side of the molecule attracts more than the other side the circle bends and becomes a line. But since that line keeps growing in length and the environment isn't to chaotic the line bends down in the direction of that attractive side it eventually becomes a circle. Then since that circle keeps getting wider by its attracting more of the base molecule the bundle becomes a sphere. Doesn't that remind you of String theory? I mean they say their are long strings and circular strings. But since there are so many dimensions these thing operate in, don't you think there is a spherical string?

We make these condensates which take a cloud of atoms and push them together with lasers and use radiation to sort out the warmer particles to the point where the bosons get so cold that through quantum effects join together to form a single boson condensate. What's stopping us from turning a Bose–Einstein condensate into a String-Einstein condensate?

There is the fear that at some point we make matter so cold that it becomes so dense that it starts a Schwarzschild radius. The Bose–Einstein condensate has a paragraph that says these things just dissipate when they hit a lump of matter that warms the condensate up. But there is a "citation needed" tag that's from April 2011. Do you think that's the reason the Space Station is getting a Cold Atom Laboratory that goes colder, or less warm you might say? Doing the experiments is awesome. There are many things we don't know about Strings, not to mention that String Theory is filled with corrections. Don't you wonder if their where more physicists working on alternative theories that when they get fixed up to the same level that they 1 or 2 of them might overtake String Theory? Doesn't that make these experiments a really good idea to do? But don't you think just the threat of the possibility of a condensate with a Schwarzchild radius might be dense enough to engulf the entire Earth into a single Black hole?

Isn’t that a really good reason for cooperation?

I mean since World War II the world has been getting more and more peaceful. We’re better off now than we were before. Isn’t that from a sort of technological warning. To go to war with Russia, for instance, would be suicide. They have Dead Hand (nuclear war) or Perimeter which since the 1960 has been set to send out all their missiles automatically at the detection of a single nuclear bomb going off in their country. Isn’t that a sort of forced peace?

I mean you may not like cooperation because you can take advantage of situations where you get away with it, but aren’t their reasons for why it’s a good thing?

BTW, emotions are e-motions or endo motions meaning motions from within. Science has trouble with that since you’d have to believe someones words about how they’re feeling and they could always lie. But I have a good one for you.

Interiorly I love you if for no other reason than it makes me happy.

So can you love at will?

Michael Francis Lidman (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Michael Francis Lidman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wrote Autocopy which included information about Autocopy and pointed out that it is used in mathematics. Defecting by deletion is answered with defection by even Tit-for-tat that always does well against Defectors as it only looses once and copies the other players last move. As Defectors do poorly against Defectors, the total score for Tit-for-tat is high but not on top. Yet even after a winning a previous round, a Defector's strategy can be taken into account and another Defector might be made to take advantage of that first Defector's algorithm. There is no limit to the number of algorithms to play this game. Autocopy takes advantage of groups where a Defector is discovered by the Defector defecting without a reason other than individual success, unlike Tit-for-tat. As Defectors are identified Autocopy never loses to that Defector. While a Defector wins against a Cooperator or Tit-for-tat, Autocopy ties against every Defector that has ever defected within it's group. However an Autocopy cooperates with Cooperators, Tit-for-tats and Autocopy. It's advantage comes from other's history. As for life there is a large amount of information already available through communication and memory such as the Internet. Bankers are scientifically actually more dishonest than politicians. There are those who think that if they can get away with it, will take advantage of the situation however uncooperative it may be. However with technology like the Internet, information on everyone can be kept and made public so a Defector can be identified. People already make resumes and personal pages that show more about them. Opinions from other people about that person can bring the Cooperators, Tit-for-tats and Autocopiers to the top and leave the Defectors with a bad name. Again as I wrote, in time Autocopy gives Defectors the reason to become an Autocopy by cooperating. Since you User:NeilN, defected against me by deleting Michael Francis Lidman, regardless of the fact that other Michael Francis Lidman's may already have information on that page; it is mathematically true that I smack you in the face with a dead fish and simply point out that I will cooperate with you if you first cooperate with me. As a mathematician and allists who wants to know all, who wrote the solution to the Addition of prime numbers here, I highly doubt that I am not here to build an encyclopedia. Michael Francis Lidman (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- GB fan 12:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was considering your unblock request when GB fan beat me to the decline. Your comments, since deleted, on Oshwah (talk · contribs) are beyond the pale. You very, very specifically need to address those and convince us you understand how breathtakingly inappropriate those were. I suspect those alone are sufficient that even with an apology, nobody's going to unblock you at this time because you have proven beyond doubt that your presence here is harmful. --Yamla (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the casual antisemitism displayed in the thread above this one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is continuing to waste our time. I have revoked talk page access. I'm not sure what he is trying to do, but it obviously has absolutely nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. --Yamla (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Michael Francis Lidman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16682 was submitted on Oct 08, 2016 14:34:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Michael Francis Lidman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16683 was submitted on Oct 08, 2016 15:34:37. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]