User talk:PaulGWiki

Welcome!

Hello, PaulGWiki! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Chris Troutman (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

PaulGWiki, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi PaulGWiki!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 03:17, Friday, November 22, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gilbert Ling (March 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gilbert Ling.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Gilbert Ling was accepted

Gilbert Ling, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Spacetime & Field Dilation Questions

Does time flow with different rate among afar space and empty space close to a galaxy?

Do time-flow differences between empty space of relatively dense regions and afar voids, affect dark matter and dark energy?

Is dark matter and dark energy an effect of time on the Planck noise rate of particle generation that fail to cancel each other?

If space dilates faster at some regions, then not only there is pitch lowering of fields, but also informational elongation of transmitted data. Also all fields do NOT dilate with the same rate, some fields like the Higgs field hate to dilate, so that friction among fields can generate or consume spacetime. [inconsequent dilation among fields effect]

How does informational dilation of single fields [and also among different fields] affect the size of empty space?

How space chunks of different time flow interact among each other? How now inside one space chunk fields that exist in that single one field react among each other [the fields of a single space chunk] with their different properties during dilation and space consumation? What affects has "among fields interaction" to spacetime of that region we observe?

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of cell membrane theory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• area by a factor of 1000. A lipid layer cannot stretch to that extent without becoming a patchwork (thereby losing its barrier properties. Such criticisms stimulated continued studies on protoplasm

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cell theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Solute, Permeable and Impermeable

History of cell membrane theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Solute, Permeable and Impermeable

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association induction hypothesis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Inductive and Diffuses. 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) 08:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Caps

Please don't recap theories, hypotheses, laws, etc. See WP:MOSCAPS. Tony (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: AIH Article

I never claimed the theory stated the cell membrane is made of purely structured water. I claimed the hypothesis does not explain why osmium tetroxide accumulates around the cell membrane and does not permeate the cell. Further I only gave osmium tetroxide as a single example of lipid bilayer characterization. There are several different methods used and they all lead to the same conclusion: cell membranes are lipid bilayers. Is this a coincidence? Does Ling claim every method we have of lipid characterization is wrong and confused by structures that are chemically very different from lipids? That would be another in a long line of extraordinary claims.

Ling claims that proteinoid microspheres show that osmium tetroxide stained bilayers are not necessarily lipid bilayers. But this implies that the microspheres were visualized with osmium tetroxide. They were not. Osmium tetroxide is specifically used to stain lipids.

Additionally, proteinoids do not exist in living cells. They are structurally distinct from proteins because they have non-peptide bonds and linkages that proteins in living cells don't have. The bilayer formed by the microspheres are of completely different dimensions compared to the lipid membrane of cells. It would be a relatively simple matter for Ling to examine real proteins and water, stain them with osmium tetroxide, and compare them to pictures of cells. Why has this never been done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.167.66 (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association induction hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilute. 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) 12:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A simple question...

Why are large sections of this edit [1] written in the first person (e.g. "...my former summer student, Gerri Magavero and I...)? Why does it refer to "work yet to be published"? Is this copied from somewhere? Or are you in fact Gilbert Ling? Either way, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, and I think you owe us an explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Apologies, this is a mistake and shows my inexperience as a Wiki contributor. I was intending to do the major edit on the criticisms of Ling's theory section in a single sitting but I woefully underestimated how long it would take to do and I also got called away on an emergency. I should have moved the uncompleted text into my sandbox for further work which I have now done so. Again apologies.

The text for this section is sourced from Ling's compilation of the criticisms which contains around 30 cites. I cannot find on the internet any comparable list of criticisms, also bear in mind that much of this debate happened in pre-internet 60's and 70's. To counter against possible bias in Ling's interpretation I will read the original cited papers to ensure they are characterized appropriately in the Wiki article and rewrite according to wiki NPOV policies. Hope this is an acceptable approach. PaulGWiki (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You say that the material is 'sourced from' Ling. That wouldn't explain why it was written in the first person unless it was actually directly copied from sources he wrote - and such direct copying (except in brief clearly-indicated quotations) is totally against Wikipedia policy, both for copyright reasons, and because it may constitute plagiarism. You must ensure that content is written in your own words. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Plagiarism before proceeding further. Frankly though, I suspect that you may be wasting your time with the association induction hypothesis article, as you have once again failed to demonstrate that the subject matter has been the subject of in-depth coverage in third-party sources, and it is clear that you have as yet not understood Wikipedia policy regarding appropriate encyclopaedic coverage of minority viewpoints. The article reads like a personal essay written with the sole object of promoting Ling's views - which simply isn't appropriate in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I don't believe the charge that you have once again failed to demonstrate that the subject matter has been the subject of in-depth coverage in third-party sources is fair. The new text for the criticism of Ling section has around 15 cites from independent and reliable third party papers that are critical of Ling's theory. This 2012 paper by Vladimir Matveev talks extensively about Ling's AIH theory which is cited in the main Gilbert Ling page. (which indeed has cites to books and papers by Gerald Pollack and Mae-Wan Ho(2008,2012) PaulGWiki (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association induction hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilute. 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) 09:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Association induction hypothesis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Association induction hypothesis 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/Association induction hypothesis 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. Tigraan (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy-pasting problems in Gilbert Ling

I've been looking more closely at Gilbert Ling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I'm seeing some pretty serious problems. There are large chunks of text which you used to create and expand the article which seem to be copy-and-pasted directly (or with very trivial modification) from other sources: articles, books, and websites. Even if you add a footnote identifying the source(s) involved, it's not appropriate to create an article by pasting together pieces from other people's writings. It represents a violation of copyright, and is a form of plagiarism—both of which Wikipedia takes very seriously.

At this point, I've wasted a little over an hour trying to track down which parts of the article are original versus copied. I'm going to step away from the keyboard for a bit, and give you a chance to come clean and correct your errors. Are there any passages you added to the biography that you wrote yourself? Everything else is going to have to be rewritten from scratch. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Conciseness please

When you have specifically been asked to provide 2 sources that clearly establish the subject has been covered in detail by independent sources your responses being walls of text do not help you. It comes across that you are attempting to obfuscate that there is not such coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PaulGWiki. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)