User talk:Threshold Pilot

Creating a new article
I saw your further question on the Helpdesk: if you want to create an article, the quickest way is to type the proposed article name in the search box on the left-hand side, and click 'Search' The results will help verify that you are not creating something that does already exist - if it does, it might be best to include your content in that article... although it usually helps to discuss this on the article discussion page first to avoid upsetting other editors ;)

If your intended article does not exist, you can click 'Go' instead of 'Search'; you will then be given the option to 'create this page'. Click this link and copy/paste your text into the editing box, click 'preview' to check the design, add an edit summary (something like 'page creation'), and click 'save'. The article title will be whatever you originally searched on, and is automatically added to the top of the page.

There is no formal 'approval' procedure for adding articles or content. For new articles, go right ahead (although as Adrian explained they obviously should comply with Wikipedia policy - see the links above in your Welcome message). For adding content to existing articles - if it is properly sourced, again, go ahead. A core

policy on Wikipedia is Be bold! If the additions are major though, or involve removing sourced material or altering things like the page layout etc, they are best discussed first with the article's other editors on the article talk page (click the 'discussion' tab at the top of the article).

Hope this helps - any questions etc, you can reply here or on my talk page (I'll see it either way). All the best, and welcome to Wikipedia! EyeSereneTALK 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC) e Threshold


 * Addendum to the above: As Adrian said, it sounds as though you are trying to use the 'Upload file' link - this is used for uploading images to be included in articles, not to create the articles themselves. Copy/paste is the way to go for text you have prepared elsewhere. EyeSereneTALK 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To EyeSerene

Many thanks for your helpful info.

Threshold Pilot 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Adrian also replied at length on his talk page, which I hadn't realised due to the separation of the comments on the New contributors' help page, so apologies for the repetition ;) EyeSereneTALK 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion issue
HANG ON, please

To whomsoever is proposing speedy deletion of 'The Primes Enigma etc'

'''THIS IS NOT ADVERTISING. THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL PRODUCT TO ADVERTISE. THE NAMED COMPANY IS NOT BEING PROMOTED.'''

Threshold Mathematics currently exists as an electronic paper which has been circulating parts of the mathematics community worldwide as a pdf file since early 2007 and which originates online at aetheraware.org. It has been the subject of some interesting discussion as it slowly filters into the wider consciousness. This is why it seems appropriate for it to be in Wikipedia.

The company name, Pathway Initiatives Ltd, was only added after Wikipedia requests for more background information, since it holds the copyright to the Threshold idea (which the article is trying to outline) - in the same way that the publisher of a book is normally named. I'll quite happily remove the name if that would be more acceptable. Sometimes this seems quite a hostile environment, as a new contributor, but I guess you have to deal with a lot of commerciality.

Some positive specific advice about the presentation of this emerging subject would be welcomed as supplementary to the general Wikipedia instructions.

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I haven't worked out how to insert the "Hang on" as instructed in the most recent editorial comments.

Thanks in anticipation

Threshold Pilot 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoever tagged it will not see this, so I'll look into it. The article needs a heck of a lot of work but it is not an SD candidate so if it has been tagged, I will remove the speedy tag (which I can do as a third party if I believe that the nomination was clearly wrong). Back shortly.  Adrian  M. H.  14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Too late. I just checked your contribs as a quick way fo reaching the article, and I see that it is conspicuous by its absence. The log shows the deletion and a restoration by another editor prior to a procedural move. We may see what happens shortly.  Adrian  M. H.  14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Adrian.

I'm not able to stay physically at my computer for extended periods so I come back periodically to check in. I guess it's wait and see before considering what's next. Hopefully, you're right and this can move forward.

Threshold Pilot 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Threshold mathematics
Thanks for the message; I'd be happy to lend a hand.

It seems to me that the main difficulty is to establish notability for the subject: per the relevant Wikipedia policy (on WP:NOTE), "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (my emphasis)

For any new theory, this is always going to be difficult set of criteria to meet - it takes a while until there are a few serious, peer-reviewed, academic treatments of the subject (I'm guessing we'd be looking at things like journals, papers etc as the main sources?). I'm unfamiliar with the actual topic here; from my physics background it sounds a little like the 'Quantum mysticism' type of pseudo-science... but that's no reason not to have an article if we can prove it is notable for inclusion, source it sufficiently, and write it in a neutral way.

Possibly the best way to go would be to write the article in your user space first (by creating a sub-page under your username - I can help out with this if necessary). This will keep the article safe from drive-by deletion nominations until it is ready to be moved into the encyclopedia proper.

Hope this helps! EyeSereneTALK 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Threshold Pilot, I have responded at my talk page.  Adrian  M. H.  21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up to your reply: If you have created a sandbox, it sounds like you have already got the sub-page thing sorted out. Just in case, I'll go through the process anyway ;) You can create any sub-page in your userspace by appending the page title to the full address of your main page: eg to create a sub-page called Test, you would type  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Threshold_Pilot/Test  in the address bar of your browser. When you go to the page, you will be informed that it doesn't exist, and given the option to create it. Then all you need to do in future is remember how to get there... many editors put links to their sub-pages on their main user page as a shortcut to having to type the address every time.


 * Re the article; do you have a link to your copy of it? If you don't mind, I can take a look and hopefully make some suggestions. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To EyeSerene Thanks again. I've now entered the article on my /test sub-page as suggested and await your thoughts. Would you prefer me to post my correspondence on my or your or both Talk pages? Threshold Pilot 08:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I found the page! I hope you don't mind, but I've breached wikiquette a little and put a link to the article on your user page. Some editors don't like other people to edit their main page (for obvious reasons, as it's a semi-personal space), but no offense is intended; I just thought it'd make it quicker to navigate there for both of us in future. Please feel free to remove the link if you wish - I'll completely understand, and will be happy to chip in either way.
 * Re talk page posts: It doesn't matter to me whether you prefer to post on my talk page or here, or both (I've watchlisted your talk page, so I'll see any posts whether you copy them to my page or not). There is no format for this, and I have no preference, although if we're going to be collaborating on this article, it might make more sense to keep all the comments in one place. I'd be happy to continue here, or if you prefer we could use the talk page for the 'test' page you created...? Let me know where you want to post, and we can get started ;) EyeSereneTALK 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To EyeSerene

No problem about inserting the link - thanks for doing it. Given my somewhat limited time available in relation to the many subtleties in the world of Wikipedia, maybe I'm slowly beginning to get the plot, at least in outline. I suggest, for simplicity, we continue to communicate here for now.

As must be obvious, I feel that the ideas in Threshold Mathematics are significant and therefore should at least have some presence in Wikipedia and so be available to anyone who is curious to explore them further. To me, one essential quality of its approach is that it is inclusive and transcends the old binary split/schism between the mutually exclusive 'us or them' materialist and mystical camps. And as such, it is not some weak, diluted compromise between them. Perhaps, in this respect, it's like the view of a non-partisan historian who can see the commonality of both sides in the bigger picture of how this or that war came to be fought.

With best wishes, over to you.

84.12.78.102 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Article
Hi - sorry it's taken a while to respond (busy weekend; Bank Holiday in the UK!).

I've had a look over the article, and I must confess that I don't entirely understand what it's getting at. However, that may just be a clarification issue which can be handled by a copyedit: the first thing to do is to ascertain if there are reliable, independent sources that we can use for citing the claims made in the article. Has this subject been covered in the press, or elsewhere? I googled the term, but could find nothing (admittedly after a perfunctory search). I suspect this will be the sticking point; as you have already seen, articles without "verifiability" will not survive the deletion review process. (Note that the benchmark on Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth').

If we can get the sources, then the article will need "wikifying", ie formatting and organising into the accepted style for this encyclopedia. That, whilst potentially time-consuming, is a fairly straightforward process and one I'll be happy to assist with.

I'll continue this below after another read-through... EyeSerene TALK 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To EyeSerene

Yes, the unusual nature of the article in question and what it’s about does require some clarification, as you suggest. To save your time, the essence of it, briefly, is that what started out as a curiosity driven, psychological investigation into perhaps the two best known enigmas in mathematics ended up with conclusions carrying some profound and much wider implications. A few professors of mathematics have engaged in dialogue with the author. So far no one has refuted the findings of Threshold Mathematics.

On the practical level, being very new, there are probably still no external ‘verifying’ sources other than its publication online at www.aetheraware.org/ where it first appeared in early 2007. And even though it is not commercially motivated, not political or religious propaganda nor pursuing some personal agenda, I do realize how the understandably suspicious guardians of Wikipedia integrity may perceive the article as simply trying to promote unverifiable material.

So if, in your judgement, it’s too new and there can as yet be no place for the article in Wikipedia, is there any reason why a brief reference to Threshold Mathematics and its specific claims should not appear as a small addition to the two relevant sections, the prime numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis, where the current consensus is still that no solutions exist?

What say you?

Threshold Pilot 08:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you won't mind me chipping in here. By your description, it seems that the subject is indeed too new for inclusion. It would fail the notability guideline and it is not going to be sufficiently verifiable. There is a likelihood of some original research and/or synthesis taking place. You could report about it in a closely related article, provided that it meets the needs of WP:V and WP:RS and stays absolutely neutral. That will require that you report on the development of this new system (if that's the right word) in a detached way and not draw any conclusions. Post again if you need further help.  Adrian  M. H.  09:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To Adrian M.H.

Apologies for the delay and thanks for dipping in - all helpful assistance welcomed. It does seem to be simply too soon for the article in question to be acceptable to Wikipedia. Meanwhile, what do you think about the idea of entering a brief addition to the two relevant sections as suggested in my last posting? These would serve simply to inform anyone enquiring generally about the topics that there do exist interpretations contrary to the currently prevailing view of those normally considered to be ‘reliable sources’ regarding mathematics.

Threshold Pilot 19:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, you could comment on it elsewhere, if it fits of course. There is no point in trying to wedge some content in where it looks incongruous (ie, it is possible, but undesirable, to include content that is related to an article's subject matter but contrary to it in some way). And you will need to be strict with reliable sources and balance, otherwise it is likely to get reverted without mercy.  Adrian  M. H.  20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To Adrian M.H.

Thanks for your further thoughts. In order to open up and expand the two subjects, in your judgement would the following seem sufficiently neutral as short extensions of the relevant sections: (a) prime numbers and (b) the Riemann Hypothesis? If not, I’d be interested to see how you’d rewrite them in a Wikipedia-friendly way, if you felt so inclined.

(A) Prime Numbers

A paper (Threshold Mathematics) recently published online at www.aetheraware.org/ and endorsed by Dr Alan Rayner, Reader at the University of Bath, UK, offers a metaphysical / metamathematical view that there is a logically consistent and mathematically sound solution to the mystery of the prime numbers sequence.

(B) Riemann Hypothesis

A paper (Threshold Mathematics) recently published online at www,aetheraware.org/ and endorsed by Dr Alan Rayner, Reader at the University of Bath, UK, offers a metaphysical / metamathematical view that there is a logically consistent and mathematically sound solution to the mystery of why the Riemann Hypothesis can neither be proved nor disproved,

PS The claims of Threshold Mathematics have been the subject of ongoing private dialogues with a few mathematical authorities, including professors, none of whom has refuted them. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum, inviting some further authoritative input would seem to be a healthy development.

Threshold Pilot 10:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That certainly would need to be rephrased if it were to avoid prompt removal and/or dispute. For example, the addition of an external link in body text is definitely inappropriate with regard to style and the impression that it conveys. In other words, they look ugly, break up the flow of the reader's eye, and give the distinct impression that the surrounding statement has been inserted with ulterior motives. Your aim is to report what has occurred without hinting at an opinion about it, so you should avoid words like "endorsed" and "sound solution":

The University of Bath recently published a paper that claimed to provide an answer to the question raised by the prime number sequence. In it, Dr Alan Rayner [or whoever authored it] described. . . . . [insert footnote here]
 * If no one has yet published any of the discussion that you mention, then you will have to leave that part out.  Adrian  M. H.  11:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks Adrian for the contributions; I've been snowed under with work recently, and haven't had the time to respond properly. Threshold Pilot: As Adrian has pointed out, you will need to be extremely fastidious with both writing and sourcing. Especially with a subject like this, which many 'hard' scientists/mathematicians will no doubt regard as spurious in the same way that most doctors regard acupuncture or homeopathy, you may have a bit of a battle on your hands to prevent immediate reverts of any additions to the Prime number/Reimann hypothesis articles. This is not to discourage you, merely to acknowledge the difficulty of introducing anything that might be seens as running counter to accepted wisdom! However, it ought to be worth a try ;) Re your comment about inviting further authoritative input, this is great as long as those authorities have published anything that will be used. Wikipedia is (notoriously) no respecter of expertise... where that expertise cannot be backed up by published reliable sources. EyeSerene TALK 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To Adrian and EyeSerene,

Many thanks all round. Dr Alan Rayner is not the author of Threshold Mathematics and as yet I haven't been able to raise any published 'reliable sources' on this subject. So I guess at this stage I'm struggling against the odds. However, all things in their time. All the best for now.

85.211.83.201 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)