User talk:W.GUGLINSKI

Welcome
Hello, W.GUGLINSKI, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, 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 Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Toddst1 03:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Quantum Ring Theory
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Quantum Ring Theory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. NeilN 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bäuu Press
A tag has been placed on Bäuu Press, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kkmurray 03:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quantum Ring Theory
Quantum Ring Theory, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Quantum Ring Theory satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Quantum Ring Theory during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. NeilN 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop changing people's comments in this discussion. You are welcome to challenge their opinions, but do not write things claiming to be from other people. Only you can change your vote, and you can't change other people's. Hut 8.5 11:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Harland1 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted

Harland,

I only tried to put the page of discussion in a form to be easier understood by people. Sorry if it seemed to be vandalism. Sure that was not my intention W.GUGLINSKI 02:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Toddst1 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The book reviews were lifted verbatim from Amazon. Toddst1 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Toddst, book reviews have no copyright. The original review posted by Naveen Dankal was posted in the Barnes & Noble. Later the book review in Amazon was lifted from Barnes & Noble, which means that there is not violation of copyright W.GUGLINSKI 05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Book reviews are certainly copyrightable. If you doubt this, you might want to place copies of New York Times book reviews on a personal website, advertise it, and see how fast you get shut down. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  06:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone
Please refrain from "lecturing" other wikipedians. While you are an accomplished physicist, there are many people here who better understand the operations of Wikipedia. This is a great example: you decided on your own that book reviews should not be copywritten, and proceeded to assert your wisdom. Toddst1 15:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Toddst, the Indian theorist Naveen Dankal wrote his review on the book Quantum Ring Theory in 12-July-2007 at his comunity in Orkut, named Grand Unification Theory, as you may see in (www).orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=22285602&tid=2543025345437313518


 * Later, in 17-July-2007 Naveen posted the same review in Barnes and Noble:
 * http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780972134941#TABS,  from where it was lifted by Amazon.com


 * So, it seems that Amazon.com violates a copyright, because it did not ask Dankal's permission to use his review W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be proving my point for me. I won't push it further. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Don Borghi's experiment
Don Borghi's experiment, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Don Borghi's experiment satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Don Borghi's experiment and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Don Borghi's experiment during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Toddst1 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your afd comment
Please stop with the weird formatting. It is disruptive. - Rjd0060 05:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cold fusion theories
Cold fusion theories, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Cold fusion theories satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Cold fusion theories and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Cold fusion theories during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hut 8.5 07:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hut 85 , where is the article Cold fusion theories ? Is it in AfD form yet ? W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Cold fusion theories -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the rough start
Dear Wladimir, you've had a rough introduction to Wikipedia proceses that can't have been pleasant. This place works in ways that will seem odd to newcomers and the solution is usually just taking time. Can I suggest that you just spend some time following links from The five pillars of Wikipedia, browsing through articles (particularly the good ones) and maybe making some small edits. Over time I think you'll come to see the way the Wikipedia works and, consequently, enjoy it far more here. Please drop me a note or not as it pleases you as I'm happy to help if I can. All the best - Peripitus (Talk) 11:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Source for date of experiment
You asked me on the AfD for Don Borghi's experiment to give you my source in the academic journal. Actually you cited the same source that I was reading on the AfD. You cut and pasted the abstract onto the page. Pay particular attention to "the laboratory synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons was claimed in the late 1960 by the Italian priest-physicist Don Carlo Borghi"(emphasis added). Handschuh-talk to me 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Handschuh, I suppose it is a typewritten error. I have the Santilli's book in my house, published by the Journal of New Energy (Santilli kindly sent it to me). In the book the date is 1980, as quoted in the Wiki's article Don Borghi's experiment. I think the 1980's is the most realist, because it is closer to 1993 when the paper was published. If Don Borghi would have reached to his results in the 1960's, why would he to wait 33 years for publishing his paper ? However, such doubt only Santilli can eliminate. W.GUGLINSKI (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if the authors of the article failed to get it reviewed by spell check I can see why their academic peers haven't given it a second thought. Handschuh-talk to me 21:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your article creations
Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia you will be blocked. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI Notice
User:Michaelbusch has opened a thread at WP:ANI concerning you. See WP:ANI. Best, shoy  (words words) 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No original research
Please note Wikipedia's prohibition on original research which you have most recently violated here. More generally, you appear to be engaged in a pattern of disregard for Wikipedia core policies, as pointed out above by other users. Please respect community norms and engage constructively with other users if you wish to retain your editing privileges. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
All of your edits have been disruptive and all you have been doing is pushing non-notable pseudoscientific theories onto Wikipedia. For these reasons, you have been indefinitely blocked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)