User talk:PaulGWiki

PaulGWiki, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gilbert Ling (March 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Your submission at AfC Gilbert Ling was accepted
 Gilbert Ling, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Spacetime & Field Dilation Questions
Does time flow with different rate among afar space and empty space close to a galaxy?

Do time-flow differences between empty space of relatively dense regions and afar voids, affect dark matter and dark energy?

Is dark matter and dark energy an effect of time on the Planck noise rate of particle generation that fail to cancel each other?

If space dilates faster at some regions, then not only there is pitch lowering of fields, but also informational elongation of transmitted data. Also all fields do NOT dilate with the same rate, some fields like the Higgs field hate to dilate, so that friction among fields can generate or consume spacetime. [inconsequent dilation among fields effect]

How does informational dilation of single fields [and also among different fields] affect the size of empty space?

How space chunks of different time flow interact among each other? How now inside one space chunk fields that exist in that single one field react among each other [the fields of a single space chunk] with their different properties during dilation and space consumation? What affects has "among fields interaction" to spacetime of that region we observe?

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=612351055 your edit] to History of cell membrane theory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * area by a factor of 1000. A lipid layer cannot stretch to that extent without becoming a patchwork thereby losing its barrier properties. Such criticisms stimulated continued studies on protoplasm

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Cell theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Solute, Permeable and Impermeable


 * History of cell membrane theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Solute, Permeable and Impermeable

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association induction hypothesis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Inductive and Diffuses. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Caps
Please don't recap theories, hypotheses, laws, etc. See WP:MOSCAPS. Tony  (talk)  05:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: AIH Article
I never claimed the theory stated the cell membrane is made of purely structured water. I claimed the hypothesis does not explain why osmium tetroxide accumulates around the cell membrane and does not permeate the cell. Further I only gave osmium tetroxide as a single example of lipid bilayer characterization. There are several different methods used and they all lead to the same conclusion: cell membranes are lipid bilayers. Is this a coincidence? Does Ling claim every method we have of lipid characterization is wrong and confused by structures that are chemically very different from lipids? That would be another in a long line of extraordinary claims.

Ling claims that proteinoid microspheres show that osmium tetroxide stained bilayers are not necessarily lipid bilayers. But this implies that the microspheres were visualized with osmium tetroxide. They were not. Osmium tetroxide is specifically used to stain lipids.

Additionally, proteinoids do not exist in living cells. They are structurally distinct from proteins because they have non-peptide bonds and linkages that proteins in living cells don't have. The bilayer formed by the microspheres are of completely different dimensions compared to the lipid membrane of cells. It would be a relatively simple matter for Ling to examine real proteins and water, stain them with osmium tetroxide, and compare them to pictures of cells. Why has this never been done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.167.66 (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association induction hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilute. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A simple question...
Why are large sections of this edit written in the first person (e.g. "...my former summer student, Gerri Magavero and I...)? Why does it refer to "work yet to be published"? Is this copied from somewhere? Or are you in fact Gilbert Ling? Either way, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, and I think you owe us an explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump Apologies, this is a mistake and shows my inexperience as a Wiki contributor. I was intending to do the major edit on the criticisms of Ling's theory section in a single sitting but I woefully underestimated how long it would take to do and I also got called away on an emergency. I should have moved the uncompleted text into my sandbox for further work which I have now done so. Again apologies.


 * The text for this section is sourced from Ling's compilation of the criticisms which contains around 30 cites. I cannot find on the internet any comparable list of criticisms, also bear in mind that much of this debate happened in pre-internet 60's and 70's. To counter against possible bias in Ling's interpretation I will read the original cited papers to ensure they are characterized appropriately in the Wiki article and rewrite according to wiki NPOV policies. Hope this is an acceptable approach. PaulGWiki (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You say that the material is 'sourced from' Ling. That wouldn't explain why it was written in the first person unless it was actually directly copied from sources he wrote - and such direct copying (except in brief clearly-indicated quotations) is totally against Wikipedia policy, both for copyright reasons, and because it may constitute plagiarism. You must ensure that content is written in your own words. I suggest you read Copyrights and Plagiarism before proceeding further. Frankly though, I suspect that you may be wasting your time with the association induction hypothesis article, as you have once again failed to demonstrate that the subject matter has been the subject of in-depth coverage in third-party sources, and it is clear that you have as yet not understood Wikipedia policy regarding appropriate encyclopaedic coverage of minority viewpoints. The article reads like a personal essay written with the sole object of promoting Ling's views - which simply isn't appropriate in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump I don't believe the charge that you have once again failed to demonstrate that the subject matter has been the subject of in-depth coverage in third-party sources is fair. The new text for the criticism of Ling section has around 15 cites from independent and reliable third party papers that are critical of Ling's theory. This 2012 paper by Vladimir Matveev  talks extensively about Ling's AIH theory which is cited in the main Gilbert Ling page. (which indeed has cites to books and papers by Gerald Pollack   and Mae-Wan Ho(2008,2012)  PaulGWiki (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association induction hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilute. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Association induction hypothesis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Association induction hypothesis 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/Association induction hypothesis 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. Tigraan (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy-pasting problems in Gilbert Ling
I've been looking more closely at, and I'm seeing some pretty serious problems. There are large chunks of text which you used to create and expand the article which seem to be copy-and-pasted directly (or with very trivial modification) from other sources: articles, books, and websites. Even if you add a footnote identifying the source(s) involved, it's not appropriate to create an article by pasting together pieces from other people's writings. It represents a violation of copyright, and is a form of plagiarism&mdash;both of which Wikipedia takes very seriously.

At this point, I've wasted a little over an hour trying to track down which parts of the article are original versus copied. I'm going to step away from the keyboard for a bit, and give you a chance to come clean and correct your errors. Are there any passages you added to the biography that you wrote yourself? Everything else is going to have to be rewritten from scratch. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Conciseness please
When you have specifically been asked to provide 2 sources that clearly establish the subject has been covered in detail by independent sources your responses being walls of text do not help you. It comes across that you are attempting to obfuscate that there is not such coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)