User talk:Jongray

Anaclopen
I've added the "prod" template to the article Anaclopen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Anaclopen. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not a mathematics person. I can imagine that your new term is useful, and that it may well catch on. But Wikipedia doesn't accept articles on neologisms, however necessary or desirable they may be. As an encyclopedia, our goal is to be a tertiary source - that is, to describe things that already appear in other published sources. The project is not about promoting new ideas or concepts (again, even if they are wonderful and inarguably helpful.) Until there are other sources that use the term "anaclopen," it's inappropriate for us to have an article about it. FreplySpang 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I now understand the argument being posed. The Wikipedia article creation process is a sort of Catch-22 as in order to get anaclopen into the realm of usage it must be published in a noticeable place (read: Wikipedia), yet Wikipedia does not allow such neologisms. I suppose a solution is to publish the term anaclopen in a journal and reference myself?

On a side note, I used Google to find any instances of "anaclopen," "aclopen," or "anticlopen" without success. So certainly this word is unique by virtue of the fact that Google knows all.

Also, I would like to point out that a possible argument against anaclopen is to use the phrase "not clopen." If one is versed in basic logic, however, they will quickly note that "not clopen" is not logically equivalent to "anaclopen" since not clopen implies not closed OR not open whereas anaclopen implies not closed AND not open: a subtle but significant difference.

Jongray 02:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly it (except that we don't count Wikipedia as a "noticeable place"). Thanks for your patience and understanding! FreplySpang 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chair nash.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Chair nash.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 19:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 19:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)