User talk:Allyhall321

Subjective Ease
Any Questions can be asked. And Responses given. Allyhall321 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Allyhall321, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Thank you for the welcoming invitation. Allyhall321 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Target Integration


A tag has been placed on Target Integration, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Uncle Roy (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have given many positive words to wikipedia community and this will continue as long as the opportunity is here. In my 9 days of membership I have realised; when there is an opportunity to write, I should write and do it as best I can. Yes I expect my writing style to adapt to wikipedia style but this comes with experience and regular practice for longer than 9 days, so this must be taken into account.

An 'all-around education' is the definition of encyclopedia (by Google & Oxford Dictionaries), and therefore when new language is coined, eg Quantum Existence, or Target Integration, there can be an opportunity within the scope of an encyclopedia to give meaning to these new phrases. This is the way an encyclopedia expands and is the very reason an encyclopedia exist in the first place; to hold and organise the meaning of words.

Now, when i came across the article with an unchangeable title of "Target Integration", it seemed like an opportunity to contribute my years of research and practice of moving towards a human society where we are all seen as an important part of each other, connected through our communication and presence; which is the same as targeted integration. So i gave the article a go, for i am a writer, therefore write i shall. And yes, this took courage to do because respect wikipedia i do.

Now the reason the company website 'TargetIntegration.com', was included, is because in the research this was most associated with those words therefore I felt credit was due, and included them for reference. That was the first time I had came across that company, therefore this validates my account as being a genuine person, Allyhall321, with aims to be a long standing wikipedia member who contributes regularly. Allyhall321 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Remember, as a new member one must attempt something to see if it works, this is the learning process of a keen new member on wikipedia. So again the request to continue editing is here therefore an adminsistrator must carry forth with this action. To encourage eager new writers is the only way for a optimistic long term view of wikipedia. New writers must be given opportunities to express their knowlegde and research with the help of experienced writers alongside, we can really have an excellent setup on wikipedia when we all see our wikisociety as a great place to work and improve our language. Allyhall321 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response and your kind information, it makes a positive difference to a newcomer, thank you. And to be clear and correct, this is the first time i have ever made an account on wikipedia. This is confirmed and verified as truth within me yet it depends on the trust within you, whether it is accepted as such.

Now, to become a regular and respected wikipedia writer i realise i must learn rapidly in how to present my third person research to this pubic encyclopedia in a way that is inline with the current style based on reference and representation of information already existing. Fair enough. And since most of my research is tertiary, it makes sense that it is summarised in a way, original to me, however with my academic background in engineering and management, the way i present my tertiary research can be easily rectified towards wikipedic representation.

Now, again, i thank the administrators for their continual effort to read new articles and edits, despite the ongoing reputation of the administrators as being quite ruthless with their deletion of articles and userpages written by new members, it is the opinion of many, especially the administrator's support, that new members should get a reasonable chance to integrate into this community, and by speaking with the people who read the new articles, ie, you, it is a logical approach to productive integration within wikipedia, to correct and increase the editing responsibilities of Allyhall321, which is an easy task i give and i hope there is sufficient curiosity to see the potential Good that can come from such warm action. Thank you. Are there any further explanations required before the block is lifted? If so, i am eager to give them because my integrity is high.

So again, i repeat the request to have another opportunity to post a great article, userpage, and make some editing improvements.

Ok. Allyhall321 (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but in this edit you removed a speedy deletion tag from Target Integration, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Kostas20142 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested positive collaboration to overcome a block and continue editing.

I have given many positive words to wikipedia community and this will continue as long as the opportunity is here. In my 9 days of membership i have realised; when there is an opportunity to write, i should write and do it as best i can. Yes i expect my writing style to adapt to wikipedia style but this comes with experience and regular practice for longer than 9 days, so this must be taken into account.

An 'all-around education' is the definition of encyclopedia (by Google & Oxford Dictionaries), and therefore when new language is coined, eg Quantum Existence, or Target Integration, there can be an opportunity within the scope of an encyclopedia to give meaning to these new phrases. This is the way an encyclopedia expands and is the very reason an encyclopedia exist in the first place; to hold and organise the meaning of words.

Now, when i came across the article with an unchangeable title of "Target Integration", it seemed like an opportunity to contribute my years of research and practice of moving towards a human society where we are all seen as an important part of each other, connected through our communication and presence; which is the same as targeted integration. So i gave the article a go, for i am a writer, therefore write i shall. And yes, this took courage to do because respect wikipedia i do.

Now the reason the company website 'TargetIntegration.com', was included, is because in the research this was most associated with those words therefore i felt credit was due, and included them for reference. That was the first time i had came across that company, therefore this validates my account as being a genuine person, Allyhall321, with aims to be a long standing wikipedia member who contributes regularly.

Ok now onto my username page which is in most a place to practice wikipedia style of writing on the subject of Quantum Existence, with which id like to consider myself an expert in when able to express my years of knowledge experience and research in these matters.

Which is reason for allowing this user account Allyhall321 full editing rights and responsibilities. Along side the rights and reponsibilities that many of the good contributers already have.

Now my userpage is directed towards the discussion of Quantum Existence because this is a way to learn how to add references to the text and is a place to show my research for Quantum Existence, so that the potential to write a proper article can be seen.

Remember, as a new member one must attempt something to see if it works, this is the learning process of a keen new member on wikipedia. So again the request to continue editing is here therefore an adminsistrator must carry forth with this action. To encourage eager new writers is the only way for a optimistic long term view of wikipedia. New writers must be given opportunities to express their knowlegde and research with the help of experienced writers alongside, we can really have an excellent setup on wikipedia when we all see our wikisociety as a great place to work and improve our language. Allyhall321 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response and your kind information, it makes a positive difference to a newcomer, thank you. And to be clear and correct, this is the first time i have ever made an account on wikipedia. This is confirmed and verified as truth within me yet it depends on the trust within you, whether it is accepted as such.

Now, to become a regular and respected wikipedia writer i realise i must learn rapidly in how to present my third person research to this pubic encyclopedia in a way that is inline with the current style based on reference and representation of information already existing. Fair enough. And since most of my research is tertiary, it makes sense that it is summarised in a way, original to me, however with my academic background in engineering and management, the way i present my tertiary research can be easily rectified towards wikipedic representation.

Now, again, i thank the administrators for their continual effort to read new articles and edits, despite the ongoing reputation of the administrators as being quite ruthless with their deletion of articles and userpages written by new members, it is the opinion of many, especially the administrator's support, that new members should get a reasonable chance to integrate into this community, and by speaking with the people who read the new articles, ie, you, it is a logical approach to productive integration within wikipedia, to correct and increase the editing responsibilities of Allyhall321, which is an easy task i give and i hope there is sufficient curiosity to see the potential Good that can come from such warm action. Thank you. Are there any further explanations required before the block is lifted? If so, i am eager to give them because my integrity is high.

So again, i repeat the request to have another opportunity to post a great article, userpage, and make some editing improvements.

Ok. Allyhall321 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
...and welcome. Let me know if you need any help. GiantSnowman 20:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes Hi, I would like some help to continue editing and tips on how to be a long standing respected member of Wikipedia. Allyhall321 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 21:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested positive collaboration in order to overcome the block and continue to edit.

I have given many positive words to wikipedia community and this will continue as long as the opportunity is here. In my 9 days of membership i have realised; when there is an opportunity to write, i should write and do it as best i can. Yes i expect my writing style to adapt to wikipedia style but this comes with experience and regular practice for longer than 9 days, so this must be taken into account.

An 'all-around education' is the definition of encyclopedia (by Google & Oxford Dictionaries), and therefore when new language is coined, eg Quantum Existence, or Target Integration, there can be an opportunity within the scope of an encyclopedia to give meaning to these new phrases. This is the way an encyclopedia expands and is the very reason an encyclopedia exist in the first place; to hold and organise the meaning of words.

Now, when i came across the article with an unchangeable title of "Target Integration", it seemed like an opportunity to contribute my years of research and practice of moving towards a human society where we are all seen as an important part of each other, connected through our communication and presence; which is the same as targeted integration. So i gave the article a go, for i am a writer, therefore write i shall. And yes, this took courage to do because respect wikipedia i do. Now the reason the company website 'TargetIntegration.com', was included, is because in the research this was most associated with those words therefore i felt credit was due, and included them for reference. That was the first time i had came across that company, therefore this validates my account as being a genuine person, Allyhall321, with aims to be a long standing wikipedia member who contributes regularly.

Ok now onto my username page which is in most a place to practice wikipedia style of writing on the subject of Quantum Existence, with which id like to consider myself an expert in when able to express my years of knowledge experience and research in these matters.

Which is reason for allowing this user account Allyhall321 full editing rights and responsibilities. Along side the rights and reponsibilities that many of the good contributers already have.

Now my userpage is directed towards the discussion of Quantum Existence because this is a way to learn how to add references to the text and is a place to show my research for Quantum Existence, so that the potential to write a proper article can be seen.

Remember, as a new member one must attempt something to see if it works, this is the learning process of a keen new member on wikipedia. So again the request to continue editing is here therefore an adminsistrator must carry forth with this action. To encourage eager new writers is the only way for a optimistic long term view of wikipedia. New writers must be given opportunities to express their knowlegde and research with the help of experienced writers alongside, we can really have an excellent setup on wikipedia when we all see our wikisociety as a great place to work and improve our language. Allyhall321 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response and your kind information, it makes a positive difference to a newcomer, thank you. And to be clear and correct, this is the first time i have ever made an account on wikipedia. This is confirmed and verified as truth within me yet it depends on the trust within you, whether it is accepted as such.

Now, to become a regular and respected wikipedia writer i realise i must learn rapidly in how to present my third person research to this pubic encyclopedia in a way that is inline with the current style based on reference and representation of information already existing. Fair enough. And since most of my research is tertiary, it makes sense that it is summarised in a way, original to me, however with my academic background in engineering and management, the way i present my tertiary research can be easily rectified towards wikipedic representation.

Now, again, i thank the administrators for their continual effort to read new articles and edits, despite the ongoing reputation of the administrators as being quite ruthless with their deletion of articles and userpages written by new members, it is the opinion of many, especially the administrator's support, that new members should get a reasonable chance to integrate into this community, and by speaking with the people who read the new articles, ie, you, it is a logical approach to productive integration within wikipedia, to correct and increase the editing responsibilities of Allyhall321, which is an easy task i give and i hope there is sufficient curiosity to see the potential Good that can come from such warm action. Thank you. Are there any further explanations required before the block is lifted? If so, i am eager to give them because my integrity is high.

So again, i repeat the request to have another opportunity to post a great article, userpage, and make some editing improvements.

Ok. Allyhall321 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Quantum Existence
Hello. This message is concerning your user page and your previous Teahouse request. Perhaps of interest to you would be the articles Quantum mind and Quantum cognition. However, it should be noted that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal web host or blog to write about original research (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS) or our own theories. Articles must only report about what experts wrote in their respective field. As per WP:ARBPS, administrative discretionary sanctions may be effected in relation to pseudoscience related topics; there also never was credible evidence discovered supporting the hypothesis that quantum processes are important for neurological processes. It may still be possible to write about notable related hypotheses when related books and authors are very popular, although that should usually be done outside of scientific articles (i.e. neurology ones) in order to avoid undue weight (see WP:UNDUE). If starting a new article, its claims must be well sourced (referenced to relevant reliable sources, see WP:RS) and those sources must also include ones which clearly assess that the topic, or authors, are notable enough to be covered by the encyclopedia (see WP:NOTABILITY). Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  — 22:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Paleo for reading my writing and giving me some experienced feedback.

I have given many positive words to wikipedia community and this will continue as long as the opportunity is here. In my 9 days of membership i have realised; when there is an opportunity to write, i should write and do it as best i can. Yes i expect my writing style to adapt to wikipedia style but this comes with experience and regular practice for longer than 9 days, so this must be taken into account.

An 'all-around education' is the definition of encyclopedia (by Google & Oxford Dictionaries), and therefore when new language is coined, eg Quantum Existence, there can be an opportunity within the scope of an encyclopedia to give meaning to these new phrases. This is the way an encyclopedia expands and is the very reason an encyclopedia exist in the first place; to hold and organise the meaning of words.

Ok now onto my username page which is in most a place to practice wikipedia style of writing on the subject of Quantum Existence, with which id like to consider myself an expert in when able to express my years of knowledge experience and research in these matters. Now my userpage is directed towards the discussion of Quantum Existence because this is a way to learn how to add references to the text and is a place to show my research for Quantum Existence, so that the potential to write a proper article can be seen.

Remember, as a new member one must attempt something to see if it works, this is the learning process of a keen new member on wikipedia. So again the request to continue editing is here therefore an adminsistrator must carry forth with this action. To encourage eager new writers is the only way for a optimistic long term view of wikipedia. New writers must be given opportunities to express their knowlegde and research with the help of experienced writers alongside, we can really have an excellent setup on wikipedia when we all see our wikisociety as a great place to work and improve our language.

Allyhall321 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Rquested collaboration to overcome a block and continue to edit.

I have given many positive words to wikipedia community and this will continue as long as the opportunity is here. In my 9 days of membership I have realised; when there is an opportunity to write, I should write and do it as best I can. Yes I expect my writing style to adapt to wikipedia style but this comes with experience and regular practice for longer than 9 days, so this must be taken into account.

An 'all-around education' is the definition of encyclopedia (by Google & Oxford Dictionaries), and therefore when new language is coined, eg Quantum Existence, or Target Integration, there can be an opportunity within the scope of an encyclopedia to give meaning to these new phrases. This is the way an encyclopedia expands and is the very reason an encyclopedia exist in the first place; to hold and organise the meaning of words.

Now, when i came across the article with an unchangeable title of "Target Integration", it seemed like an opportunity to contribute my years of research and practice of moving towards a human society where we are all seen as an important part of each other, connected through our communication and presence; which is the same as targeted integration. So i gave the article a go, for i am a writer, therefore write i shall. And yes, this took courage to do because respect wikipedia i do.

Now the reason the company website 'TargetIntegration.com', was included, is because in the research this was most associated with those words therefore I felt credit was due, and included them for reference. That was the first time I had came across that company, therefore this validates my account as being a genuine person, Allyhall321, with aims to be a long standing wikipedia member who contributes regularly.

Ok now onto my username page which is in most a place to practice wikipedia style of writing on the subject of Quantum Existence, with which id like to consider myself an expert in when able to express my years of knowledge experience and research in these matters.

Which is reason for allowing this user account Allyhall321 full editing rights and responsibilities. Along side the rights and reponsibilities that many of the good contributers already have.

Now my userpage is directed towards the discussion of Quantum Existence because this is a way to learn how to add references to the text and is a place to show my research for Quantum Existence, so that the potential to write a proper article can be seen.

Remember, as a new member one must attempt something to see if it works, this is the learning process of a keen new member on wikipedia. So again the request to continue editing is here therefore an adminsistrator must carry forth with this action. To encourage eager new writers is the only way for a optimistic long term view of wikipedia. New writers must be given opportunities to express their knowlegde and research with the help of experienced writers alongside, we can really have an excellent setup on wikipedia when we all see our wikisociety as a great place to work and improve our language. Allyhall321 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Allyhall. I'm afraid I might've been a little curt with you when we talked on my talk page, so I thought I should come here and give you a little more of an explanation. The problem here is that you seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. We're attempting to write an encyclopedia, of course, but part of being an encyclopedia is that we're a tertiary source. Thus, when you say things like an opportunity to contribute my years of research, that's actually counter to Wikipedia's goals, because we have a rule against publishing people's original research. Basically, Wikipedia is not meant to be the first place where anything is published; instead, we are only to write about that information that is verifiable through citations to independently reliable sources. You can't use your own personal research as the subject and sources of a Wikipedia article; you can only use what other sources, ones that are independent of the article's subject, to establish a Wikipedia article. As part of the rule against publishing original research, we also have rules against the synthesis of multiple sources to reach a new conclusion that's not in either source, since doing so would really be a different form of original research.
 * That's one of the reasons (among others) why your article ended up being deleted; it had no sources and discussed what appeared to be original research like an essay, rather than summarizing reliable sources like an encyclopedia article. There were others, like our prohibition against advertising. In order for your block to be lifted, you'd have to be able to demonstrate that you won't do stuff like this again. Also, several editors have the impression that you might be a sockpuppet, an alternate account made to evade a block on a different Wikipedia account or otherwise break the rules. I must admit that your editing pattern is fairly unusual, and it's not uncommon to make and act on such an impression. You'd also have to answer that question, as well. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response and your kind information, it makes a positive difference to a newcomer, thank you. And to be clear and correct, this is the first time i have ever made an account on wikipedia. This is confirmed and verified as truth within me yet it depends on the trust within you, whether it is accepted as such.

Now, to become a regular and respected wikipedia writer i realise i must learn rapidly in how to present my third person research to this pubic encyclopedia in a way that is inline with the current style based on reference and representation of information already existing. Fair enough. And since most of my research is tertiary, it makes sense that it is summarised in a way, original to me, however with my academic background in engineering and management, the way i present my tertiary research can be easily rectified towards wikipedic representation.

Now, again, i thank the administrators for their continual effort to read new articles and edits, despite the ongoing reputation of the administrators as being quite ruthless with their deletion of articles and userpages written by new members, it is the opinion of many, especially the administrator's support, that new members should get a reasonable chance to integrate into this community, and by speaking with the people who read the new articles, ie, you, it is a logical approach to productive integration within wikipedia, to correct and increase the editing responsibilities of Allyhall321, which is an easy task i give and i hope there is sufficient curiosity to see the potential Good that can come from such warm action. Thank you. Are there any further explanations required before the block is lifted? If so, i am eager to give them because my integrity is high.

So again, i repeat the request to have another opportunity to post a great article, userpage, and make some editing improvements.

Ok. Allyhall321 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand. It's not that your research wasn't presented correctly. It's that your research doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, at least right now. It's not an issue of style, it's an issue of substance. Scientific research generally needs to have been published in respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journals for it to have a place in Wikipedia. If your research still needs to be summarised in a way, original to [you], then it's not ripe for a Wikipedia article. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. You're probably right but it still calls for a longer opportunity to improve and present a contribution worthy of current wikipedia. Allyhall321 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)