User talk:Avrill~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Combined set theory
In regard the above-mentioned article -- is this published anywhere? If not, whether or not the theory is useful (although I feel it isn't), it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See the guideline No original research for an explanation of the reasoning behind those decisions.

If you are the "Avril Styrman" mentioned in the article, you have to be particularly careful about writing about subjects you've created until they reach the published literature. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that before deleting this article, somebody has to point out a contradiction in CST. If there is no contradiction, then it is valid. There is no mystery there. All other set theories that I know have infinite sets. This is infinitely uneconomical. CST is the most economical set theory there is, and does not suffer from the empty set, which is why it is useful. The reason I put it here in Wikipedia was to get feedback from professionals interested in the subject. Nobody has pointed out a contradiction in it. I naturally believe that there is no contradiction. I admit that I did not know the rules of Wikipedia before I submitted the article, but there are also many other set theory-subjects with no links to published literal sources. If CST is deleted, these should be deleted also. The bottom line: it is useful and uncontradictory, and I have to get it published by some magazine to get a nominal acceptance for it. Avril Styrman
 * Hello Avril, welcome to Wikipedia. Concerning the article combined set theory, since original research is not appropriate for Wikipedia (see WP:OR), I am going to propose this article for deletion via WP:PROD. If and when this becomes a published and recognized theory, then an article on this topic can be recreated. In the mean time I hope you will find other topics to which you might care to contribute. Paul August &#9742; 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not blank pages, it is considered vandalism. —Ruud 23:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sincerely not, but I had personally inserted the page that I deleted, and as can be seen above, it was also supposed to be deleted. So I deleted it. The border of what is original research and not is quite vague. There are also very, very many articles in wikipedia that have not been published as printed literature. There are things that are true and will be published on paper only after they have been published on-line. I think that it is more important that the issue itself is rational and useful, than to require it to be printed on a paper. But, rules are rules.

—A 18 October 2006

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Avrill. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Avrill~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)