User talk:Aristarchus11

Reasons to retain the article Theory of selfvariations

Hello Jitse Niesen and readers of Wikipedia,

There are a number of reasons to retain an independent article about the theory of selfvariations:

1. Parts of it have been presented (after invitation) in the XXI SEAC Conference in Astronomy (September 2013) in order to become known to a wider professional audience. The interest of the conference organizers and participants was strong, as new solutions to existing problems are always wellcome. The topics are covered in the conference's Book of Abstracts (s. Extermal links).

2. The first appearance of the Theory of selfvariations in the media was in a major greek newspapaper on 1 September 2008 (ΕΘΝΟΣ) where it was presented by this name and was favourably commented by professor Xenophon Moussas, head of the Astrophysics Laboratory of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (worldwide renown for his work on the Antikythera Mechanism). It has also appeared in a number of other newspapers.

3. A reference of the theory of selfvariations is maintained in the NASA archives, in particular in the The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System

4. The theory is not original research since it has been approved for publishing by the chief editors of 4 different peer reviewed scientific journals. It has been checked by a total of 8 independent academic professional reviewers (standard procedure i.e. 2 for each journal), which approved its contents.

5. The theory has been presented in printed book format published by the Hellenic Physical society in 2011 (ISBN 978-960-9457-06-4).

6. The theory explains the cosmological data and agrees with all the latest cosmological meausrements (especially the increased luminosity distance of supernovae and the fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) (presented in detail in the published articles).Aristarchus11 (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about the article is taking place on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of selfvariations. You may want to raise your arguments there. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Theory of selfvariations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theory of selfvariations 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of selfvariations 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..

Note that it is not enough for the article to be based on published research; we need evidence for other people to have engaged with this research. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

Hello Prestonmag,

The article is based on published research in various refereed journals as cited in the references. The original research papers are all available on the internet. You can verify (I can help with this) that the Wikipedia article exactly reflects the published material. Please take a look. This theory is relatively new but seems very consistent.Aristarchus11 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Theory of selfvariations

Hello Aristarchus11,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Theory of selfvariations for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

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. Prestonmag (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement warning: pseudoscience

Please carefully read the following notice:

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for topics relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.

Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.

This is in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of selfvariations. Sandstein 08:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Emmanuil Manousos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emmanuil Manousos 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuil Manousos 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. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]