User talk:Forever true

Renascence [New-Science-and-logic] or "Obscurantism both of Theology and Science" (Forever true (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Planing on adding some new definitions enhancements placements mainly to Pure Logic. But do not ascribe to the free use of my Book of Pure Logic. Only as new development of logic and analysis for Philosophy and Science ! With the link to the origin of these definitions and Science and Philosophy enhancements ! Thus the origin of these definitions remains originally mine ! But the definitions have to be ascribed use of ! The derivatives are the same as I present hence there are no derivatives as such using my ideas. As Pure Logic is the basis of all logic.

MY CONTRIBUTIONS TO OTHER DISCUSSIONS

Solar System

unusual facts

The Earth and Moon actually orbit a common center of gravity. The Moon does not orbit the Earth, just as Jupiter doesn't orbit the Earth.(Book Of General Ignorance) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.91.92 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood how Science can emphatically assert an age of 4.6 billion years ago ! THE CORRECT FORM OF WRIT WOULD BE: It is believed to be by the methods used to calculate it...! I SUPPOSE IT IS BECAUSE EVOLUTION SCIENCE IS SO EXACT ! --Forever true (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, every single sentence in every single Wikipedia article would need such a claim; e.g., "According to the methods of current historical scholarship, the US Revolutionary war was fought between the UK and its former colonial subjects in Americas"..."Based on contemporary standards of measurement for buildings as adopted in France, the Eiffel Tower has been measured to be X meters tall"...etc. Wikipedia reports on scientific theories in the same way as we report on anything else--by reporting those theories which are most widely held, giving due weight to alternative (but not fringe theories). Finally, and I'm not sure if you're joking, but the theory of evolution has almost nothing to do with calculations of the age of the solar system. Evolution refers only to the change in living beings across multiple generations as a result of mutation and environmental change--it isn't related to astronomy, geophysics, or other methods used for calculating the age of the solar system. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well not exactly my logic, but that of correct Scientific use of language. Or simply life has no value, nor really what crazy thing Science might claim ! You would change wikipedia if you want to show your correct logic and that of Science. But not as something imperative "taxatively= implied or exact meaning", only if it is thought it matters.

AS to the FIELDS OF USE OF EVOLUTION theory, I differ, as you Evolutionists have taken control of everything, including Origins of the Solar System, and the Universe theories. Please your response as to Evolution in only Biology is a misleading statement ! I must add that what you define as Evolution, must be only you, because all Evolution books claim bigger things that are supposed to happen by mere luck ! -------user: Forever_true. --96.55.192.149 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to do so, because that is not the appropriate use of this page. The only thing this page may be used for is to discuss improvements/changes to the article Solar system. If you have some sort of reliable source that provides a different age for the solar system, please provide it. Please note that this has to be what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I do not have any known method to calculate such a thing. Nor have I done any logic analysis to disprove this age claim. But I fulfill my rights to participate and interchange logical ideas ! --96.55.192.149 (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC) [user: Forever_true][reply]

And I cannot resist adding that the common centre of Mass is within the Earth. So it is perfectly correct to state that the Moon orbits the Earth. −Woodstone (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I do not understand how the Moon does not orbit the Earth ! -------user: Forever_true. --96.55.192.149 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

Edit request from 27 March 2011

Padlock-silver-slash.svg This edit request has been answered. Set the |fulfilled= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Some Jackass put The Bible (from Greek τὰ βιβλία ta biblia "the books"), sometimes referred to as the Holy Bible, is the various collections of sacred scripture of the various branches of Judaism and Christianity. It is A FAIRY TALE. The Bible, in its various editions, is the best-selling book in history. [1]

i mean really no one noticed? someone fix it and take it out the immaturity of some people is amazing. Duranu (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for spotting it, and registering an account to inform us. That edit survived an hour an a half. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

Bettering the Article

My Book of Pure Logic, finds some logical common knowledge logic in the Bible.

But I have never understood why the Bible is supposed to be Holy or Sacred ? --96.55.192.149 (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC) ; user: Forever_true

I know, a part from a personal affinity followers have to the Bible, and belief, and thus have a feeling for it! The same as I have for my Book of Pure Logic. Holy or Sacred are referred to when used about an item or Book, because the item has some power or infers some damage or curse in it , to anybody that modifies it, from so many years back, to today, or uses it wrongly ! Eeeek, that is exactly what it has written in the Book of Revelation ! Which I of course do not accept as a logical consequence for doing something to a mere Book ! That is ancient ! --96.55.192.149 (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC) . User: Forever_true .

Deleted from Richard Dawkin's Discussion page

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Richard_Dawkins[[1]] My discussion reference to my article Book of Pure Logic was there a few days, until they realized what my Book says about the God Delusion and Richard Dawkins inferior logic was right !

I will public Debate you Anywhere and/or Online

Do you have the honorability to debate with me anyhow ?--Forever true (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doctor who

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Richard_Dawkins#doctor_who

I have just noticed that his cameo apperance on "doctor who" is still missing so if someone could edit that it would be nice. (Doctor who Season 4 Episode 12)80.109.69.198 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably be worked in if you provided a reliable source. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two.[2][3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will publicly debate you anyhow , as you teach your illogic ! To withdraw means "DEFEAT" !--Forever true (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I WILL DEBATE YOU ANYHOW

a MAN WITH ANY "b_ _ _ ls" cannot avoid a public DEBATE. To decline is DEFEAT, and publicly here !--Forever true (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted from Richard Dawkin's "Foundation for Reason and Science"

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Richard_Dawkins_Foundation_for_Reason_and_Science[[4]]

Discussion about your book's article

Hi,

I notice there are pages on recent published books and novels.

Like say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Ancient_Wonders

Do you think i can have help to make my Books pages on wikipedia ?

George. <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.192.149 (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can do that if you believe your works pass a notability test. I would suggest you sign up for an account. Then when you have a user page, you can go to the address bar in your browser and create a page to write your draft. So you could just add /<Book title> after your username address (which will be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:<your username>). You can begin writing your article there and when you believe it's complete, we can move into the main article space. If you need help, let me know. upstate NYer 02:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to: uer: UpstateNYer. Previously the notariety/notability test was "biassed" ! And defined as to be too new or not published for long enough ! Though it is a very new work and of much value ! It is new to some extent in Philosophy and Science ! THANKS FOR YOUR VERY HUMAN AND NON-BIASED ANSWER ! Yes I would be very interested in placing all information for Humanity History and Advance in a user account ! And have it there available for wikipedia.org ! The info though would be general layout. As the specifics are for the public to study and find out in the Book, due to the commercial value and Academic value ! But it would not be a mistakenly "commercial add", as it is development in logic as : pure logic.

Where do I get a template for the article ?

Thanks again: <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.192.149 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account first, and we'll go from there. upstate NYer 23:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:UpstateNYer. I am also an agnostic Civil Engineer. For any rpeview of what is going to be the setting of the article Titled "Pure Logic" in Philosophy. And Logic Analysis techniques in all of Science. see: book of Pure Logic at: google books or amazon. Looking for article template. (Forever true (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Planing on adding some new definitions enhancements placements mainly to Pure Logic. But do not ascribe to the free use of my Book of Pure Logic. Only as new development of logic and analysis for Philosophy and Science ! With the link to the origin of these definitions and Science and Philosophy enhancements ! Thus the origin of these definitions remains originally mine ! But the definitions have to be ascribed use of by permission ! The derivatives are the same as I present hence there are no derivatives as such using my ideas. As Pure Logic is the basis of all logic. Well not until after 50 years of copyright, or more years after copyright renewal by my rightful heirs . No creative common rule can over-ride a copywrite [It would have to be un-published and erased from copywrite]. Some notability in a Book of the ArchBishop William Thomson [[5]]. "something:...The necessary rules of Thought...!". I must add that wikipedia can do the World the favor to not wait so long for the inclusion of new Human Knowledge references. Otherwise how do you up-grade in a timely manner ? This will help rid Science and the World of all the linked dinosaurs, to the linking to new development references. The same as you mention Richard Dawkins, that does not take his Books copyright away ! IF YOU MENTION RICHARD DAWKINS you have to mention me justifiably and inexorably. As Evolution is of illogic in Philosophy, thus defined by pure logic and me. Even if you want to accept this as only "my theories" in Philosophy ! ! ! OTHERWISE YOU CAN DIS-CATEGORIZE/UN-NOTABILIZE publicly please.

You can orient me as to what can be referenced to and included in my "article" Pure Logic in Philosophy. But bye bye creative commons. An Encyclopedia does not take away any copyright. As re-defined, it is a means of Human Knowledge Index reference of common knowledge and for further study information with the reference of new developments in the Human Knowledge base!

By(Forever true (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

So does that mean you're no longer interested? I can get you started on a template, but that's all I have time for. upstate NYer 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know we are all limited by time ! But I will do Human History a favor whilts I live and in a timely manner, as a page of Richard Dawkins ! That is as an informative collection of Human History, and basic knowledge, obviously !

SO YES LETS SEE THE TEMPLATE[TEMPLAR] ? By(Forever true (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.192.149 (talk) [reply]

Additionally once we go to template, we would have to limit comments and modifs. to me and wikipedia editors of course !(96.55.192.149 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Draft

Template is available at User:Forever true/Pure Logic. You'll want to fill in as many of the blanks in the infobox as possible. See Template:Infobox book#Usage for usage. That said, I now see that your book is self-published, which does not give it much clout when it comes to notability. However, if you can create a good article that fairly represents the book using third party sources, you may be able to convince a new page patroller to keep the article. However, I'll be frank with you: I don't expect this to get past the deletion stage for new articles. But hey, you never know. If you need further help, please consult the Books Wikiproject. upstate NYer 03:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing and i thought i was wrong ! IT DOES NOT HAVE MUCH CLOUT ? Now that sure is a 'statement' ! Because according to my Book, Evolution and all it's followers do not have "any" clout and nor does much of Bible Theology, studied in Academia, hence i make reference to ! ANYTHING OUT OF ACADEMIA IS merely history facts, though if it has pure logic to it, it has "clout" ! But i do not need to criticize what is not Academia, other than as a joke ! Anyway, lets give it a try, to human intelligence and logic !

SO DO YOU THINK the current World "apes" will realize the "clout" of my writ and pure logic ?

Anyway, lets give it a try, and good luck to human intelligence and logic !

(Forever true (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Philosophical thoughts of your own work aside, you need to prove notability by referencing reliable third party sources. upstate NYer 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT, yahoooo ! Lets see how I fair ! THANKS.

Did you know that reliable third sources, limits original work reference, and timely human historic recording of it ! So is the records of the movies 2012, and the Book of Eli, have any notability, or "untimely" notoriety notability/notorietyhttp:// en. wikipedia. org/wiki/2012_(film)? ? ? OTHERWISE WE ARE IN TROUBLE HERE ! ! ! IS IT A COMMERCIAL ADD OR NOT ??? : COMPRehende ? ? ?(Forever true (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed deletion of Book of Pure Logic

The article Book of Pure Logic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a webhost where you can publish your own research. It is an encyclopedia that relies on secondary sources. For this book to have an article, it must meet the notability guidelines - see Wikipedia:Notability (books). Also WP:FORUM, WP:NOTWEBSPACE.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Timestamp: 20110330065238[reply]

==BOOK OF PURE LOGIC DELETION==

Notariety and Notability is in Contradiction with recent MOVIES which are original personal style work !

IF YOU DELETE THE BOOK OF PURE LOGIC, I am going to COURT to eliminate EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY FROM ACADEMIA, AS INFERIOR LOGIC.

ONE OF THE ONLY SOLUTIONS IS MY INCLUSION IN WIKIPEDIA, as possible future basis for many more MOVIES, as 2012, and THE BOOK OF ELI, which did their movies too soon after my BOOK !

THE ONLY WAY IS "COMPETITION" WITH the OLD logic dinosaurs with pure logic, to prove NO-BIAS !

So if you want to do a TIMELY inclusion of my BOOK as these MOVIES, then you are doing HISTORY A FAVOR !

OTHERWISE A BIG WORLD PROBLEM IS GOING TO BE STARTED, BECAUSE OF YOUR MENTAL "BIAS", and mis-understanding of real notability/notariety and your rules ! Forever true (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. MASEM (t) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IF WE ARE GOING TO LIVE UNDER Impressions, then your logic is dumb ! Forever_true. 96.55.192.149 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand, I am saying it is A WORLD HISTORIC ISSUE ! With the problem starting from CANADA !

Nomination of Book of Pure Logic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Book of Pure Logic 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/Book of Pure Logic 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

       ==BOOK OF PURE LOGIC DELETION==

Notariety and Notability is in Contradiction with recent MOVIES which are original personal style work !

IF YOU DELETE THE BOOK OF PURE LOGIC, I am going to COURT to eliminate EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY FROM ACADEMIA, AS INFERIOR LOGIC.

ONE OF THE ONLY SOLUTIONS IS MY INCLUSION IN WIKIPEDIA, as possible future basis for many more MOVIES, as 2012, and THE BOOK OF ELI, which did their movies too soon after my BOOK !

THE ONLY WAY IS "COMPETITION" WITH the OLD logic dinosaurs with pure logic, to prove NO-BIAS !

So if you want to do a TIMELY inclusion of my BOOK as these MOVIES, then you are doing HISTORY A FAVOR !

OTHERWISE A BIG WORLD PROBLEM IS GOING TO BE STARTED, BECAUSE OF YOUR MENTAL "BIAS", and mis-understanding of real notability/notariety and your rules ! Forever true (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.192.149 (talk)

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

SORRY BUT MY BOOK MENTIONS AND IS IN UN-BIASSED COMPETITION WITH Original work BOOKS and MOVIES ! AND WIKIPEDIA records all important History knowledge in the same timely manner as these BOOKS and MOVIES on WIKIPEDIA ! I DO NOT HAVE ANY SCIENCE SECRET NEW WORK !

And you are being web-host for all these other illogic main stream recent BOOKS and MOVIES --Forever true (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RECOMMENDATIONS

I WOULD GO to wikipedia-org most top level editors for any wise un-biased decision ! And do not waste any more time in any un-direct discussions ! You will have to address me directly from the top of wikipedia! --Forever true (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure to be implemented: WRONG USE OF CATEGORIZATION of my Book for inclusion in wikipedia-org ! Bias determination of this ! IN COMPARISON with all else you have on wikipedia, as a un-biased SOURCE OF TIMELY "non secret scientific research", and a un-bissed timely source of Human History. And more so if you have recent WEB-HOSTING OF NEW THOUGHT/IDEAS BOOKS AND MOVIES ! --Forever true (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly, History and wikipedia does "Humans" History a un-biased service, to up date competing and compelling Books with other main stream MOVIES, more "important source" Books, ideas, beliefs, Science and Logic.--Forever true (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"FURTHER IDEAS OF LOGIC ANALYSIS""

IF IN ALL YOUR DELIBERATIONS YOU CANNOT FULLY INCLUDE MY ARTICLE. Then I recommend that you leave the deletion sign on, as no time is required for your action, and DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE, JUST FOR "CRISAKES", and this "complies somewhat" for your other followers ! --96.55.192.149 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to help

I don't know if this is going to help you, but there is no "top level editor" at Wikipedia, at least as far as content is concerned. All editors, even administrators and bureaucrats have no special authority to decide what content should be in articles. The decision on whether or not the article in question is based entirely upon the community's consensus, as informed and guided by our policies and guidelines. It looks to me like the problem with this article is notability. Wikipedia only has articles on subjects (books, people, events, movies, etc.) that have received detailed coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If your book has received such coverage, then there should be an article about it. If it doesn't now, and it is deleted, but later it gets such coverage, then the article could be recreated at that point. In essence, Wikipedia is a place for subjects that are already notable, not those that are trying to become notable via WP. There are hundreds of other websites, also free, where you can post information about your book that have different inclusion policies than ours (some may even have no requirements at all). If you have any questions about this process, I would be happy to try to help (so long as you don't make attacks against people or issue any more legal threats). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Notability defense is clearly explained here in my discussion, and as to what wikipedia-org is as a public availability of timely History of Human activities. And my page clearly proves that you include similar Books and Movies of less real relevance and logic, than mine. On top later publications ignore my copyright work! Wikipedia cannot be led by a bias tendency of notability of ignorance of real worth and not a group wrong notability !

One defense of Canada is for wikipedia-org to not delete my article ! This is not a threat. This is a normal defense procedure ! It is up to you all editors. IF ALL THE WORLD WANTS TO GO ON AS IS, AND NOT ACCEPT notable work of advance in logic, and with bias not place my Book and article, that is your problem. I WILL HAVE TO SEE WHAT TO DO RIGHT ? Again that is not a threat, or are you accustomed to say things and answer as a mental template ?

AGAIN if wikipedia-org wants to not make notable my BOOK, it is because on a bias lack of rightful notability ! NOTABILITY is a big problem of segregation of power, social classes, and money groups, would you not think so ? And not the rightful recognition of value and better logic !

IF YOU PUT ON THESE MOVIES: Year 2012; and Book of ELI, I mention and do not place me, it is a clear use of wikipedia-org against me and my Book they based their ideas on ! SO OTHER NOT AS GOOD LOGIC OR INFERIOR is clearly mentioned here for their PUBLIC NOTABILITY, and of course they will never mention my better logic BOOK. So how do I achieve this ? EXPECTING WIKIPEDIA-ORG to do it, if they think a such a public accepted source of reliable information of HUMAN ACTIVITIES[responding BOOKS, competing Movies], is done in a timely manner! BUT NOT ENTIRELY BECAUSE A BIASED GROUP MENTIONED IT OR NOT ! !

So the World and Science will go on believing Evolution and old Bible Theology, because they are the majority or general consensus? WELL THEN YOU SAID IT, AND WIKIPEDIA-ORG IS AFFIRMING IT. CHANGE AND/OR IMPROVEMENT IS ACQUIRED THEN IF NOT IN COURT AND OTHER MEANS, BY "WAR" as they mostly have done, or illegally, and forcefully, by any ill sought means ! !--96.55.192.149 (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC); --Forever true (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I AM OPEN TO ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, but my "ARTICLE" case is clearly defined as "necessarily" NOTABLE not merely for me which is not much in comparison to HUMAN DIGNITY, and development of more logic humans, ACADEMIA and SCIENCE ! --96.55.192.149 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC); --Forever true (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but Wikipedia is a privately held non-profit organization. They have the legal and ethical right to set any rules they want for the content on their site. They have chosen to allow most decisions to be made by the volunteer editors of the cite, through a consensus based decision. One of those consensus decisions is that books, people, events, etc., cannot have their own wikipage unless it they have been the subject of multiple, independent reliable sources. Since it appears that your book has not, it cannot have its own page. In the same way that you can't walk into the New York Times and say "You have to publish this because it's important for me, for the world!", you can't just demand that Wikipedia publish info about your book. If in the future your book becomes notable, you'll be welcome to start a new page again at that time. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Help 2

Talk page discussions

Please do not remove other users' comments from talk page discussions like you did on Talk:Richard Dawkins. Kansan (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Richard Dawkins with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that Richard Dawkins probably doesn't read the talk page of his article, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this edit - if you are trying to communicate with Richard Dawkins, this is not the place to do it. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article in question, and nothing else. A better bet is probably to contact him through the Dawkins Foundation. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kansan (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Book of Pure Logic

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Book of Pure Logic, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE EDITORS OF WORLD HUMAN HERITAGE AND RESPONDING BOOKS. Thus the article would be modified by you for the requirements ! DISREGARDING ME, IS A DISREGARD FOR HUMAN HISTORY. I FEEL VERY SORrY FOR YOU AND ALL INVOLVED !

ESSENTIALLY YOU MAKE HUMAN HISTORY AS YOU WANT IT, DIS REGARDING OTHERS HUMANS RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENTS ! SO BE IT ! ! !

--Forever true (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Forever true/Book of Pure Logic

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Forever true/Book of Pure Logic, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE EDITORS OF WORLD HUMAN HERITAGE AND RESPONDING BOOKS. Thus the article would be modified by you for the requirements ! DISREGARDING ME, IS A DISREGARD FOR HUMAN HISTORY. I FEEL VERY SORrY FOR YOU AND ALL INVOLVED !

ESSENTIALLY YOU MAKE HUMAN HISTORY AS YOU WANT IT, DIS REGARDING OTHERS HUMANS RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENTS ! SO BE IT ! ! !

--Forever true (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your behavior has become disruptive and this account has been blocked indefinitely. Your edits as 96.55.192.149 (talk · contribs) have also led to a 72 hour block of that IP address. It's clear that you've become combative and cannot presently work with other editors. It's also clear that you have a conflict-of-interest regarding your book and your motivations for editing.

If you are willing to stop the behaviors that resulted in this block, you may be able to convince an administrator to unblock this account. Please read the information in these pages before making an unblock request that clearly indicates you won't retrun to prior activities: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

— Scientizzle 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never True

Hi you soon will be back on wikipedia-org no worries ! --Never true (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No he won't. Above user blocked as a sockpuppet. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]