User talk:Rocmike3

Perhaps we err in our very concept of space/time. Consider that space is a manifestation of time and that mass is a manifestation of space. M-theory gives us the necessary clues although it is hardly complete. Where time transits all universes in the multiverse, only that matter that is configured for a specific space can exist there. Matter exists here, where it should but matter with opposite e+/e- configuration exists in space configured for it also. In short, matter and antimatter did not simply cancel each other out at the initiation of the big bang: they moved a few inches over to a universe properly configured for that variety of matter. Research confirms that the big bang is in no way over: it has barely begun. If it had completed expanding 13.7 billion years ago, there would be nothing to expand into except time, which we have already discussed. Due to relativistic effects, time moves at a crawl here. But a denser universe would find that we move at an infinite blur. A lighter universe would presume that we are at time/density stasis as far as they could measure the passage of events here.

I'd say that we have a lot of homework to do before we have unraveled the mystery of space.

Speedy deletion nomination of Terminal paronomasia

A tag has been placed on Terminal paronomasia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Seven deadly sins

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. You made substantial good faith edits to Seven deadly sins, thanks for that. I've made some quite large modifications to your edits though. Although Seven deadly sins is not exactly the most well sourced of articles, we should still try, as much as possible, to keep it to the basic principles of Wikipedia, i.e. material should be referenced, there should be no original research, etc. I think you may be misunderstanding how references should be used. You seem to be using them as quotes to support what you want to say; however it's best if you think of yourself as not having an opinion at all. You are reporting what experts have said, in a way which would be helpful to a reader seeking an expert explanation in an encylopedia. So, it's incorrect to blame 9/11 on Envy and then quote Osama Bin Laden to support your case; you would have to find a Reliable Source which specifically linked the deadly sin of Envy with 9/11, at which point it might be appropriate to quote Bin Laden, especially if the quote was used in the Reliable Source. But you would essentially be reporting someone else's opinion, and you would be providing the reference to allow other people to verify that what you say about that expert's opinion is correct. You would not be attempting to advance your own case.

Of course it gets more complicated than that when there are multiple sources, as we have to decide which to prefer, and which to give most weight to, so in practice your edits will reflect your personal beliefs to some extent. But, fundamentally, we should not be presenting our own view; we should be providing as balanced an account as possible of the views of notable Reliable Sources.

Hope that's helpful. Keep editing, it's always nice to have more help making the encylopedia better. I'm happy to discuss further if you wish. Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Critical Thinking

Your recent edit to the critical thinking article was quite good for cleaning up a lot of excess and junk material. However, you have excessively removed information and taken some important facts and knowledge out about the subject. It is also written as if a group or organization is speaking to the reader. This article needs work, but I think a sandbox edit, or edit on your user page would be better. I am willing to work with you on this page if you are willing. I think we could contribute a lot more and make for a better article. I am going to revert your edit but keep it copied on my talk page. :) Andrew Colvin (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Discrediting tactic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Discrediting tactic, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrediting tactic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)