User talk:Manuelfeliz

Welcome!
Hello, Manuelfeliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Manuelfeliz, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DMacks (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Manuelfeliz


A tag has been placed on User:Manuelfeliz, 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, product, group, service or person 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 "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. DMacks (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page was signalled as unambiguously promotional? Now it is confusing... It seems what was triggering the "deletion proposal" was the fact that I added important information to the anti-gravity page? Well... I have cleaned the reference to some news in this page. Or could it be because of that? Thanks!)--Manuelfeliz (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for creating personal webpages, posting resumes, or promoting your own research. DMacks (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC) ---

Hello DMacks, didn't you notice that in my User:Manuelfeliz I was exposing to all the community all the work I am involved with (only using links and not resources of the wikipedia server) in order to clarify everyone about my level of knowledge, and in that way inform better about my person? And at the same time I was exploring a concept that could be innovative for wikipedia, leading the other users to doing the same? Each contributor for wikipedia be measured by its own work, instead of by the places where it was passing by? And all that information was in my personal User:Manuelfeliz, not in a normal article of wikipedia! Well... Forget it... Secondly: to obstruct the important information I was adding to the anti-gravity page was even more surprising. Do you think it is fake? Did you contact the Institute to see if it is true or not, before deleting it? What are your credentials concerning physics? Thanks in advance!
 * Wikipedia requires reliable sources, which for science means published research in appropriate refereed journals. Again, wikipedia is not for getting the word out or recruiting interest in your off-wiki work. If something is true and real and other people care enough about it to write about it in published sources (and even better, if others write about that). Obviously as a scientist you know the importance of going slowly and making sure others confirm results, and using review articles to help make sure one particular primary publication is not erroneous? DMacks (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear DMAcks, and when we deal with subjects which are even not allowed in "appropriate refereed" journals? What is, for those cases, a "reliable source"? Even, why does Wikipedia allow a page about a subject which is not allowed in refereed journals? As a scientist, you for sure understand that most of us are aware of the obstruction made by mainstream publishers and institutions to certain subjects, mainly when, by some reason, which can even be ideological, they don't like what you write or talk about. Those institutions are more and more loosing their credibility, while honest researches more and more expose their work in Internet by themselves. I believe it is the emerging of an opened-world, where peer-review will be the responsibility of all the community. I even challenge you to try to do the same with your work. It would be much more interesting and informative for me to have access to it than to simply rely on the information you have in your wikipedia-page. But well.. in a certain way I understand that it would be asking too much for now. About going fast, DMacks, no one is more slow on the confirmation of results than myself. If you analise my work, as I gave you that possibility, you will understand that what you say about "fast" makes no sense in this case. In the page of anti-gravity I don't want to present final results, but instead a recent application to the German Institute with the entire description of several systems that are open-to-all (not-to-be-patented) and are waiting for being tested. I even include links to the mathematical and physical descriptions of those systems, all the physicists of wikipedia and the world can read and study them by themselves and analyse those proposals. After all, none of the systems proposed till now have worked! Don't you think we have the responsibility, at least in a controversial subject like this, to let the people see those proposals with their own eyes? Therefore I would simply like to add to the "recent efforts" section the following line: - In October 2013, Feliz-Teixeira presents a complete theoretical description of several anti-patent "internal-mass-propulsion" systems to Institute for Gravity Research, which are still waiting for being tested. . - Sorry for the extension of the conversation... :-)

February 2014
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Anti-gravity. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. New theories require reliable primary sources and several well-established secondary sources for consideration for inclusion, especially for this topic. Aldebaran66 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)