User talk:L2j2

Speedy deletion nomination of Jacob prime
Hello L2j2,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jacob prime for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, I dream of horses @ 03:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to apologize for tagging the article for speedy deletion. I thought Jacob prime was a person. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  19:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jacob prime


The article Jacob prime has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * I find no evidence that a Jacob or Esau prime numbers exist and no mention to Jacob or Esau can be found in the article Prime numbers. I will do more research before tagging for blatant hoax.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safiel (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jacob prime


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Jacob prime, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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. Safiel (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lhermite's Models
Please add references to independent reliable sources to this article. At present it looks very much like original research, and in any case it is not clear that it is notable. Deltahedron (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You could click here : L2j2 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lhermite's Models‎


The article Lhermite's Models‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


 * You removed the proposed deletion notice, but did not explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Without such an explanation I assume you accept the valididty of the reason for the proposal, namely Non-notable concept, either original research or made up as a joke. This term does not appear in the scientific literature or indeed anywhere else?  Deltahedron (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop adding articles to this and the other language encyclopaedias which is based only on your own idea of what things ought to be called. The terms "Jacob prime", "Esau prime" and "Isaac prime", for example, seem to be entirely your own invention. The term "Lhermite's Models" is equally unknown to the literature. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to promote your own novel ideas and terminology -- we go by what independent reliable sources have said. If you keep adding this sort of stuff, and refusing to engage with the other editors who are trying to tell you how Wikipedia works, then your editing privileges may have to be curtailed. Deltahedron (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to engage with other editors who are trying to discuss issues with you. Simply deleting tags without any kind of edit summary or discussion as an article talk page or on your own user page, and without addressing the underlying issues is unhelpful and discourteous.  Deltahedron (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I also urge you to engage with other editors at Articles for deletion/Lhermite's models and explain why this concept is notable and why you think the article should be kept. Just adding more material of the same sort to the article without addressing the issues will prove to be a sheer waste of time if the article ends up being deleted.  Deltahedron (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

orphan
I've tagged Lhermite's models as an "orphan", i.e. no other articles link to it. If you know of others that should link to it, could you add the links? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

you could click here

Nomination of Lhermite's models for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lhermite's models is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lhermite's models until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.


 * As stated in the notice, you must not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. If you wish to argue for the retention of the article, you must do so at the AFD page.  17:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about your login
Do you edit the Italian-language wikipedia under the same login of "L2j2"? Deltahedron (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC) And if so, you may wish to comment on ht:Lainé Jean Lhermite Junior in the light of Conflict of interest guidelines. Deltahedron (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you really mean Italian, or perhaps Haitian Creole? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I meant Italian. If you look at the Italian user page you will see why.  Deltahedron (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Lhermite's Models. JohnCD (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for publishing original work
If these theorems are your own work, Wikipedia is not the place to publish them. Please read the fundamental policy No original research, which includes: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Prime number and Lhermite's models


A tag has been placed on Prime number and Lhermite's models, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Ray Talk 03:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Prime number and Lhermite's models, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ray Talk 03:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop now
There is a community consensus to uphold Wikpedia's against including your original research, as expressed at Articles for deletion/Lhermite's models, and yet you have attempted to reintroduce that material at Prime number and Lhermite's models and again at Formula for primes. This is disruption and you must accept the community consensus: stop trying to insert this material and find something more constructive to edit or it is very likely that you will be prevented from editing at all. Deltahedron (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI
I note that you have repeated your attempts to insert your personal research, after numerous requests not to. This has become disruptive. I have opened a discussion Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents where you may wish to respond. Deltahedron (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

E.

F

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Talk:Formula for primes, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please just stop. It seems very likely now that you will be blocked for disruption.  Any good will you might have had as a new editor unaccustomed to the policies and practices of Wikipedia has now evaporated.  Your edits have become pure disruption, and they will have to be reverted.  You are wasting your own and everyone else's time.  Deltahedron (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Formula for primes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Coffeepusher (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you continue edit warring when this block expires, or try to insert your original research anywhere else, you should expect your next block to be indefinite - now stop warring and start talking! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Boing! blocked you right before I was about to do exactly the same thing. You need to read WP:OR and WP:3RR.  We are not here to publish original ideas that have not been covered in independent sources.  As a matter of fact, we have a whole slew of policies against doing just that.  If your only reason for being here is to get those ideas published here, you probably want to just turn around and find a different hobby, because it is strictly not allowed here. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me that this account is just a troll, and his contributions to all Wikimedia projects should be removed (hopefully per WP:SNOW), and all associated accounts should be indef'd. I don't know if there's anyone watching this page with the authority to do that.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 21:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lhermite models


A tag has been placed on Lhermite models, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 21:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lhermite models


A tag has been placed on Lhermite models, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 21:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 21:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing - repeated posting of original research despite explanations, warnings, and an earlier short block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)