This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dchmelik.
Welcome!
Hello, Dchmelik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
There was once an article called 'chakrology' which described chakras more concretely than the chakra article, even though I clarified some things in that article. I would like to read the old chakrology article, and I think some of it should be returned or moved to 'chakra.' How do I find it?--Dchmelik (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Kung lek, 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. 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 (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. scetoaux(talk) (My contributions.)05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it was because the article name is a transliteration of Chinese that you called it incoherent and probably not meaningful... if not, I am offended. If you had read an article on far Eastern martial arts, I am sure it would have made sense... but as I did not see pages on any other forms, I did not prevent the deletion.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Itcha, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Itcha. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)05:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Itcha and pasted it into Itcha shakti. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ(talk)14:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's now too out of my interest areas, not because of what it is, but because of implications of the words defining it. Did the article improve?--dchmelik (t|c) 07:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
my thought on the Nazirite article
The article has traditionally been a dumping ground for original research and I am very skeptical of any additions that don't have secondary sources. Primary sources (bible verse) are worthless. There are thousands of interpretations on what bible verse mean and without being able to point ot someone who interprets a verse it is original research.
Nevertheless I would like to see a wider treatment of various point of views, so long as they are sourced, and present as one of many point of views. Also while I have no problem with a view being presented that the Pharisee's view is part of a wider development of the practice, the Jewish Orthodox view that the the Pharisee have preserved an accurate tradition should also be given due weight. Jon513 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot if I replied on the article talk page since your reply on mine. Maybe I had just said since the Rastafarian view is there the modern Essene one should be. I do not completely know why Jewish Orthodox would say only Pharisees are accurate. I had thought at least Sadducces would be too, though I know little about these schools. However I dispute such use of the term 'Orthodox.' Christian Orthodoxy considers Catholicism to be sufficiently Orthodox in its viewpoints about Christianity (but not the Pope,) and I suspect even the tens of Orthodox churches have some varying viewpoints, so why would any mere one or two Jewish schools of thought be considered all of 'Orthodox?' Using the term like that is sort of inflammatory, especially since there is apparently no pre-mediaeval copy of the Torah and so the objections of the Essenes--or those attributed to them (but probably in history I have not read in-depth)--are just as valid about the Torah as other groups, because there is no (dis)proof for any one view. Finally, if there is some Heterodox view it should be represented. Maybe the Rasta addition was unfair and there should not be a modern Essene addition unless it is supported. However, if I find a historical view I would probably add it even if it is Heterodox. I still think the article should not be so conservative, but I guess that is up to people who know more about it. What I wrote was based on a researcher that has a Phd Divinity, but he is not a very formal writer and did not cite much in what I have read, though he says he sticks to historical sources, and the only sources I have read from him are historical (besides a few others with unprovable viewpoints that he describes so and does not really say much else about or push their point.) Maybe one day I will get some more info but for now I guess I will not be editing the article.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
triple manifestation
The article that you have written is mostly original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. You are generally synthesizing multiple different facts to reach a consensus that is not met in reliable sources. The policy states : "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying there is some kind of reliable religious source? I would be interested if there was one. I think some of what I wrote was cited or citable, and the rest is just written according to definition. I guess you could call it OR though. I do not recall connecting (m)any multiple sources that were at least not connected by someone else beforehand. The main reason I wrote about it in the major religions--using ideas that are not at all my own--is that I did not want to leave any out and imply it was not philoosphical, because the article is about a philosophical idea independent of any one religion. For now I just deleted almost everything new I wrote.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying anything except pointing you to some of Wikipedia's policies that dictate what type of content can be included within Wikipedia. You can't include content that has not been cited in a reliable source - that's the Verifiability policy, and you can't use multiple different sources to synthesize a conclusion that is also not part of those sources; that's the no original research policy. Also, you can't depend on primary sources such as religious sources since they generally needed to be interpreted - instead you need to use secondary sources that are reliable that have already interpreted the primary religious source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but the article is not about a conclusion--it is already defined. As I said I do not recall any of it being my own ideas, so it would have been better if I cited it or if someone thought it was interesting enough to cite. It would take hours to track down where I read all that info, so maybe I will not do it for the foreseaable future.--Dchmelik (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James Morgan Pryse
Hi,
Your newly created article on James Morgan Pryse is just too short at the moment, so it doesn't establish notability. I did a quick web search, and it looks like it would be possible to make it a useful article. Are you able to expand it?
Yes. However, I only lately discovered him after finding out various works I referred to for 11 years were either influenced by him or mostly paraphrase him without saying so. What I found of his own books are too difficult for me to write more on tonight or until I have a long amount of free time (maybe even after the school term.) I wrote equally small articles in the past and no one said anything... of course, I expanded those. I will consider expanding this one--his works are just difficult: I could just do more biography (more exists on answers.com.)Dchmelik (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no worries. Thanks for the prompt response. Sometimes - quite often - tiny articles are created and never expanded; there's a lot of junk little stubs on wiki. However, my Google search told me there was some substance to this one.
Thanks. Actually I added some info based on answers.com (books which I have seen in Worldcat, and saying 'writer' before 'Gnostic.') I am unsure this is enough: I had not written biographical articles here until recently....Dchmelik (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good enough. I'll have a go at improving it a bit myself if I get the chance. I was doing another bio earlier today. -- Chzz ► 05:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few bits from answers, and a pic. I'll try to do more later. I'm now reading all about Theosophy! His own books should be in the public domain, and answers sources those, so it should be possible to track down the original source, I would've thought. -- Chzz ► 06:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. Jenuk1985 | Talk06:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
survey and userboxes help discussion
When I just logged in I saw a survey request, then I tried to go to 'special page' to try to get the code for the icon row to put on my user page. A few seconds later the survey disappeared; could you direct me to it? I also asked Oleg Alexandrov, who welcomed, some questions.
I am sorry, I am not sure which survey you are talking about. Do you remember what it was called, perhaps I can do a search. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 28, 2009 @ 04:22
I replied on your page. NP. Userboxes' 'collapse & hide' does not seem to be working by the instructions. I found out you can combine many userboxes, such as Babel, but after I separated some back out that one is not working.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be this survey on Wikipedia Attribution? The little "hide"/"view" lines you were talking about are adding in via the Meta code and I don't think can be copied. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 28, 2009 @ 04:50
If that was the survey today, it must be. I do not recall what you mean 'Meta code;' what I tried to do is in the list of userbox options and has instructions.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meta code is the main code for Wikipedia....the behind-the-scenes nuts and bolts code. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 28, 2009 @ 04:59
I thought it was Wikitext, which I will link to, but maybe I need to link to more. If hide & view is not added yet I know not why it works in its instructions; if that is what you meant I know reasons could exist.--Dchmelik (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I was talking about looks something like this. That is the main guts code for Wikipedia. What I was meaning is I don't know if you can add a hide/view template thing like that to the top of your page (where the survey template is). - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 28, 2009 @ 05:20
Fascinating; I do not think I had seen that: it looks more like code that is usually compiled. However, all the code for arranging userboxes looked similar. I think you probably can use the one that just hides it, but I would rather not read the entire css in-depth right now. I can fix the userboxes later. After I try again and maybe try something else and do a bit of unrelated editing, maybe I will move this conversation to the bottom. Thanks for the discussion.--Dchmelik (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ORME
You deleted the abbreviation for elemental/chemical ORMEs, but they are patented in the UK and several other countries. The patent was not accepted in the USA and it is said that was due to the government's interest, which they may have stated. I am just wondering if you checked the patents in other countries (besides US,) which are 3rd party sources, or if you think the rest of the English-speaking ones do not have a reliable patent system. AFAIK, in the US, something must work before it is considered patentable. Is that not so in the UK? If so, then why delete the abbreviation? I see why people might want to delete the derived pseudoscientific term 'ormus' because it means nothing, but ORMEs is an acronym that means things that are not really beyond modern physics.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A brief search I conducted at the time turned up some amusing discussion on the validity of the topic, along with many texts only by this "David Hudson" who appears to be the main driver behind it. I'd like to see some third-party reliable sources or academic/peer-reviewed journals discussing the topic before any inclusion into a factual encyclopedia is made. SynergyBlades (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make mention of bosons, but note how this topic and article is, as with all other serious scientific articles, referenced with reliable third-party publications. These "Ormes", by contrast, are not scientifically accepted, and we can deduce this by the lack of reliable, third-party publications or scientific, peer-reviewed journals discussing the topic, as every other serious scientific topic or theory has been. Suggestions of government conspiracy theories is of course original research and so doesn't really affect its inclusion, but the fact remains this idea remains an unproven theory without any academia to back it up, and should not be made mention of in a general encyclopedia as though it were a serious scientific topic for the aforementioned reasons. Furthermore, a patent, which is essentially a first-party publication on behalf of the creator, is not really acceptable for a reference as (you guessed it) it is not the much-vaunted reliable third-party source. SynergyBlades (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I read that whole discussion but do not see what is so amusing compared to Yahoogroups ORMEs. There there are people actually trying to research it, along with a few people probably posting nonsense. Also are you saying the countries in which Hudson (who you are right, is the main person behind it) patented ORMEs do not have a reliable patent system? I suppose they may not: then that is another topic worth writing about. I am not sure where to start finding out, but I hope their patent systems are as reliable as any academic/peer-reviewed journal. Until I find out I will refrain from recreating the definition. It is enough to have the article on bosons and various advanced chemistry for now, which seem of importance to the ORMEs idea. One interesting thing I read is that only a few countries, namely Russian ones, have the equipment to detect these so-called materials. It is some equipment that burns away most of the other material while doing something like checking what light bounces off the materials... a spectrograph, IIRC? If that is true that would be a good scientific article on its own (separate from this controversial topic.)--Dchmelik (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
more discussion copied from my copy (being deleted: )
Hello Dchmelik,
Thanks for copying the article that eventually got deleted...
I would love to personally discuss with you how to proceed. I will be away in May and June, so I will have little time to attend to this, but I will leave you my email: " williamvroman@live.ca "
I am looking for help fixing the category that is necessary with the CWU userbox I created in the namespace for university userboxes. The category 'by alma mater' that seems to have to exist for each university userbox is just blank for CWU.--Dchmelik (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm going to show my ignorance here, but here goes:) Is that the same institution as the University of Washington? That already has a category. - Jarry1250(t, c)10:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dchmelik, your template Template:User CWU puts users that use it in the category Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Central Washington University. Since it doesn't exist yet, you start by clicking on the red category link on your user page or the red category link in this paragraph. Then type whatever you want to be on the category's page, and save it. I suggest putting this:
{{educat|Central Washington University|User CWU}}
in the category's page to match other similar categories. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaaotalk12:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢00:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator do you have the right to order me to do that? I did not get a chance to explain why it is relevant before you deleted, and you cannot just use that as a precedent to tell me not to create it again. I also did not get a chance this time though I gave an explanation. AFAIK these things are supposed to be voted on.--Dchmelik (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"these things are supposed to be voted on." That's not how it works, actually. What you created was eligible to be speedied. I didn't order you to do anything. I just politely asked. Enigmamsg22:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say you 'ordered;' I was just curious. At first it was basically a stub, but I read the criteria for speedy deletion and I think the 2nd time it was okay. I would like to know why it was not and if you think there is no way it could be improved I would like to get some other admins' and users' opinions. I know I can at least do that, etc..--Dchmelik (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is recommended that you use your userspace to create articles. This way you can construct them in pieces and not worry about the incomplete article getting deleted. Once you are done, have good references, and maybe even get a few fellow editors to examine it, you can copy and paste it to an actual article. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢06:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you want to read into is WP:NOTABILITY (General notability guidelines) and WP:Notability_(people) (Notability requirements for articles on people). This will give you an idea of what an article requires to be kept. Articles on living persons (Biographies) are much more strict, as the person needs to be notable in some way, as set out in those guidelines.
I'd definitely try to find references to back up your article. As it stands, I cannot see anything notable about Jeremey van Kampen. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The info is all from autobiography. Maybe I forgot some details of what is notable, but I guess whether it is or not also depends on how many Goa trance articles people want. There is a Cosmosis article, but that group has disbanded and Jeremy van Kampen is one of the former members who continues to produce music under other names. I do not think they have to be extraordinarily famous: the article would be relevant for people wanting to read about Cosmosis and finding out that it had disbanded.--Dchmelik (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give me the names and pages of those autobiographies, the names of the publisher and author, and the year, and I'll show you how to make a citation. :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢05:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately MySpace is not a reliable source. Also, notability isn't about being one of the few bands in an obscure genre, it's about achieving something, or being part of something that has achieved something remarkable. Have any of his songs made it on a national chart?
Anyways, if you look at how I've done this when you edit, you'll see how to do a citation.
Well, he seems to not have any other autobiographies (maybe he does on an album, but I do not have one.) Not that I like Myspace, but one (or someone one knows) could go to one of the shows mentioned on his page and see how reliable that is. AFAIK several of his tunes in Cosmosis have been on national charts (there is a Cosmosis article, but it is obsolete.) However that does not matter as much as how remarkable the tunes are. As for your citation it looks like one of the newer fad ones instead of one recommended by a UK university.--Dchmelik (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are Harvard style citations. If you want to use your method and just enclose that within <ref> </ref> tags, that would work as well.
If Cosmosis has charted nationally, that is indeed important, and perhaps enough to make Jeremy notable. If you can find out what charted where then put that into the Cosmosis article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Harvard style citations are considered traditional; I am just not an expert on citations and have not used them lately. I am not 100% sure Cosmosis did get on a national chart, but I still do not think that is important. They were on the oldest Goa trance internet charts and IIRC have been played by some famous DJs: Cosmosis was one of the oldest and most well-known Goa trance groups, and they got onto general mainstream techno/trance compilations in Europe. Even that is irrelevant: the Cosmosis article is about a dead group, and if it was notable then it seems updated articles should be created, but if it is not notable why is it there?--Dchmelik (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it seems Cosmosis still is a group (either they did not release for a long time, or I thought 'it is not a group anymore' because it only had one person.) I guess I have some research to do--Dchmelik (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC Cosmosis was only ever two people. Jeremy worked on tracks that became popular enough to be on the Cosmosis article, though I have not found evidence of them being on the charts in the UK, where Bill (all of Cosmosis now) lives. I would search Germany, Israel, etc. charts, but am not sure how. Here is a quote that I think would make the article notable: 'Cosmosis (with Jez Van Kampen) were also one of the original artists that, along with Total Eclipse, Hallucinogen, Man With No Name and Astral Projection, pioneered the Goa and Psy-trance sound in the early nineties.'--http://www.cosmosis.co.uk/ . I have been listening to these styles since the early 90s and making it since the mid-90s, so I know how significant Cosmosis is, though Goa started in the late 80s. I bet there are a few newer Goa producers mentioned on Wikipedia that I have not even heard of or have not got around to listening to much--Dchmelik (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles map
Hi,
Sorry I didn't reply to your message sooner, but I've been away. All my maps on Wikipedia are stored as vectors; if you open the one you want in a program such as Inkscape, you will be able to add or remove elements as you wish. Wereon (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Epilogue (web site), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epilogue (web site). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
It is notable. It is like Elfwood and several others that are notable, but Epilogue has higher standards. It is too bad this was deleted before I had a chance to address this, but I guess the problem is Wikipedia does not do email notifications.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orthopathy
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orthopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbalchat22:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I counted reverts, re-read rule, and it appears you (as usual |before, and apparently warned/blocked in the past and many times since) not I, are engaged in an edit war. I did two reverts in which I updated the article, but my one other change was a non-revert deleting plagiarism. Whenever my changes on this are undone it is done sometimes without a reference link and rarely with any explanation of why my changes are thought to be problematic--certainly with none for changes I cited from sources more mainstream than the 'critics' (one cited critic?) that I call non-NPOV and then that is removed too with none of the recommended/required discussion.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal brought up some points about how an article should be formatted, and I will work to reach consensus on that, but as for deleting reliable citations, that was not very nice.--Dchmelik (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contribution to Raw food page
Thanks for your thoughts on above. Do they mean that you are in favour of "rawism" as a title for the page? Thought I should check this.--TonyTonyClarke (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cc Adi 8.38:
‘Chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana
seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana
If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee.
Cc Adi 8.40:
Vrindavana-dasa-pade koti namaskara
aiche grantha kari’ tenho tarila samsara
I offer millions of obeisances unto the lotus feet of Vrindavana dasa Thakura. No one else could write such a wonderful book for the deliverance of all fallen souls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.142.210 (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
warning [threat from repeatedly rule-breaking/warned/blocked aggressive/biased editor people stopped mediating for]
Your recent editing history in the Slavic Neopaganism shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.--Galassi (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny; I avoid breaking rules but see you don't (perhaps consider the situation more in relation to yourself.) Maybe your strategies are also for trying to make me do that. I know I did two reverts, and three would have been warranted--for a tag (not actual article text)--when you recently deleted a WP:RS tag twice after explained, but I am trying to avoid three. This is ironic; I've never been warned by administrators, but I see you've done several violations and have been warned often (blocked | 2008, and | last year, many times since this discussion) and that at least one person thinks you are a biased editor on Slavic-related articles. Why not be reasonable instead of using that tactics/bias?--Dchmelik (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Then do not limit yourself to Cyrillic searches. The article originally used the term, and I cited sources. As we disagree, and you have said nothing constructive here and just seem to be being aggressive, I consider that harassment.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary Paganism template
Hey; thanks for your interest in the Contemporary Paganism templates that I made, what seems like many years ago now. On the whole, the two templates were not really accepted by many other editors at the time, who felt that they were somewhat unnecessary, and clogged up the top of the pages; at the time, I didn't agree, but as time as gone on I have actually come to agree with their point as I have worked more and more on articles relating to contemporary Paganism (such as A Community of Witches and Wicca (etymology)). I still think that the template that sits at the bottom of page is somewhat useful, and would suggest that that particular template be used in all articles on the subject, but in my opinion, the template that sits at the side of the page should probably just be abandoned. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The page is stuck at the same point it was months ago, and user "ThorLives" has done nothing else than continuing the removal of any source or sentence which does not fit his point of view. This situation must finish, and the article has to be rewritten. Reliable sources have been found and listed in the talkpage. Please take a look. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; at that time, I was considering giving up on Wikipedia. I still don't edit much, though I did today for a while, I'll be going back to being not very active. Did that article ever improve how you wanted? I don't agree with the redirect to Heathenry, because technically, it could include some things like pagan German Idealist modern philosophy that some of it might be atheist or pantheist, etc.--dchmelik (t|c) 07:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.05:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dchmelik. 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.
As a member of WikiProject Cannabis, you are invited to help organize the project's upcoming "420" collaboration, which is scheduled for April 2017. Yes, we're a few months away, but we're hoping to get the ball rolling by getting buy-in from experienced Wikipedia editors and seek help fleshing out some goals and ideas for a successful campaign. We also plan to conduct both on-wiki and offlline outreach so non-Wikipedias can also contribute. If you are interested in participating, please sign up and contribute to the ongoing discussions. All editors are welcome! ---Another Believer(Talk)16:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Both Tonelli-Shanks and Cipolla's modular square root algorithms can handle powers of prime modula (not just primes)
I looked up Dickson's History of Numbers vol 1 p215(Tonelli) and p218(Cipolla) and Dickson clearly shows that both modular square root algorithms can handle powers of prime modula (whereas the Wiki articles say they can only do prime modula).
I've updated the TALK pages of both articles with the relevant Dickson math, along with numeric runthroughs with Mathematica code.
However, I am not a professional mathematician so I hesitate to update the articles.
Perhaps yourself, or someone else in the Computer science field could update the relevant articles with this information from Dickson.
Thanks. However, I mostly gave up on Wikipedia years ago. I'd probably want to code with those algorithms first but some others have higher priority for me.--dchmelik (t|c) 12:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG or the significance to meet WP:BIO. Does not appear to have an Italian article and has been in CAT:NN for 11 years.
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.
Yes, because the article is on a minor and non-notable aspect of a broader topic; if it's going to be covered on WP, it would be better covered in the context of the broader topic. Also, to the extent that the article before my edit contained meaningful mathematical statements, they were false -- e.g., it is not possible to tile 3-space with regular tetrahedra. (There was an associated discussion here; you are welcome to add your thoughts there.) --JBL (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
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 deleted 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. Ingratis (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Lucifera. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Lucifera (name). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Lucifera (name). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 deleted 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Ingratis (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifera
Thanks. I won't interfere any further but don't be surprised if some other editor in due course marks Lucifera (name) for deletion, since there is no need to disambiguate the title - see WP:DAB - and the redirect serves no purpose. Also, there are strict rules on how to format a DAB / disambiguation page - see WP:MOSDAB - which it would be worth applying. Best, Ingratis (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noeta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental projection until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple manifestation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine plane until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
Only reference is to arupa-loka which is not the same (and covered in the Loka article). The only information here is that it is the antonym of rupa, which is already clear in the Rupa article. A redirect to Rupa is possible but in my view not ideal as this is just the antonym of Rupa and not a synonymous concept. Page has been a stub for years, despite a growing Rupa article. It appears there is nothing to say here.
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.
I added citations. I no longer have easy access to physical Sanskrit dictionary, but did access cited cites, which Spoken Sanskrit now seems partially-broken and also links to Learn Sanskrit.--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk09:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adi (metaphysical plane) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arupa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anupapadaka until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causeless cause until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
@Psychologist Guy, You wrote on WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bad_edits_on_fasting_and_orthopathy:
Dchmelik I believe this issue has been resolved now as you are no longer adding such content, but we have an article on Cohort study. You added a cohort as a source which is a primary source. If you read WP:MEDRS, it usually applies for any biomedical information, which means we do not add primary papers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 6:37 pm, 18 August 2022, Thursday (20 days ago) (UTC−7)[reply]
Multiple rather than single cohorts; multiple rather than single studies; both? In fact the 'WP:MEDRS' roughdraft you mentioned--which isn't even a guideline, let alone rule--doesn't quite say what you claim it does, nor are primary sources forbidden rahter than actual guidelines/rules exist how to use those! Can't you see the ambiguity of your statement: is the main object cohorts or studies, and which is describing the other?--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 07:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dchmelik, If you are making biomedical claims then WP:MEDRS applies. "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials." and "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." Cohort studies are primary studies that are not high-quality evidence, we do not cite them on Wikipedia. If you have a reliable systematic review of cohort studies that provides good-quality evidence (not low-grade) then you can add a review of studies. Most reviews of cohort studies will look at 12-20 studies. We can't add individual cohort studies onto Wikipedia or multiple like you did. We need good quality systematic reviews if such content is to be added. See WP:MEDASSESS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Psychologist Guy thanks for finally explaining, and I made a mistake: apparently 'WP:MEDRS' finally did become a guideline. The thing is I wasn't making biomedical claims, just a claim that more biomedical research & usage of a topic has been ongoing--it'd be up to other sources to state details. I hadn't been sure the problem was single cohort (so no control group) or single studies (so not replicated). I still don't know what the case is if a review cites studies that don't have a control group but it's extremely unlikely I'd ever cite such about any details.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 22:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Came across your user profile .
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deorwine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red states and blue states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red China.
Kowal2701, anthropology is a great subject, and I hope any such projects succeeds, but I don't even edit much for mythology currently and don't know anthropology basics, so unsure I can help.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 02:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s okay, you don’t need to be an expert, I’d like to have some useful sources on the main page for people interested but unfamiliar. Most articles involving oral tradition have clean up tags, so just copy editing would be useful. Personally I’d recommend Jan Vansina’s Oral tradition as history [1]Kowal2701 (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnu779 '[I'm] disillusioned about Wikimedia (bureaucracy/cabal, conformity/groupthink/sophistry, demographics/mass-dumbing-down)'--my discouraged userbox. It's been this way for me and others I know since early-to-mid 2010s for various reasons (another was certain biased/stalker/troll editors the mediation group refused to mediate for, which got so bad it hasn't existed in years last I checked)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
