User talk:AlanS333

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Wknight94. I noticed you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide verification for your edit. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! Wikipedia articles are written by people like you and me, and we care a lot about the quality of the encyclopedia. Please help us make it better. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, Wknight94 talk 02:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I saw that you removed the edit I did. I believe that it was incorrect for you to do so on the basis that i did not provide verification. If you see the other paragraphs under criticism and developement they do not have any cited verification either so on that basis you should have removed those as well. Additionally I did provide verification. It was published under facebook notes which is a reliable source. Additionally if you look under the university of arizona achieves you will find it, but those can't be cited as such as there is no proper way to do so. You may follow the link (verification) provided so you can see for yourself that it is information that has been published. To quote wikipedia:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Allright thanks for your interest, and let us keep providing free and reliable information to the world!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Wknight94. I noticed you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide verification for your edit. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! Wikipedia articles are written by people like you and me, and we care a lot about the quality of the encyclopedia. Please help us make it better. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, Wknight94 talk 17:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Maxwell's demon. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please note that Facebook notes are most certainly not a reliable source, as you claimed above. Facebook notes are self-published with no editorial nor academic/peer review of the material. Please see WP:RS for clarification on what meets the requirements of being a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source
I don't understand what you have posted on your own Facebook page. What is in the University of Arizona archives? A paper you did? Was it peer-reviewed and deemed reliable per WP:RS? As for other unverified content on that same page, you are free to remove it as well - also per WP:V and WP:RS. Wknight94 talk 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you missed one part of my question. It's not even peer-reviewed, is it?  Let alone a reliable source.  Since I have become "involved", I will be raising the issue at WP:ANI.  You really need to read WP:NOR and WP:RS.  Wknight94 talk 18:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning re: Maxwell's demon
Your recent editing history at Maxwell's demon 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. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Alan,

Please do not re-add the paragraph you're adding to Maxwell's demon until you get consensus for it on the talk page of the article. When someone disagrees with a new addition of material, the onus is on the person wishing to add the material to convince other editors it belongs.

I see people have left you notes about this above, so without wishing to be too aggressive, you need to not add this material anymore, or I'll have to prevent your editing that page until you do discuss it.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Alan, you'll probably find that there's no way to publish this in Wikipedia until some other researcher quotes your work in their own. Preferably a secondary source such as a book discussing different analyses of Maxwell's Demon. 86.168.216.105 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)