User talk:MagnetElectro

Welcome![edit]

Hello, MagnetElectro, 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 recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other 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. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, one of my first edits to be reverted was for the same thing[edit]

Wikipedia can be a strange beast to editors experienced with academia. Our articles are meant to be based on what reliably published sources say about a subject, and our own understanding and knowledge can't be used (except to find such sources and use them well). We call that original research. So, you need to read WP:NOR. WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to start, and probably as this interests you apparently WP:FRINGE which is part of WP:NPOV. We are a mainstream encyclopedia and these policies and guidelines help us keep it mainstream. I agree with you about Bauval by the way. His article is on my WP:WATCHLIST. When you use talk pages, sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ If you do need help with a fringe subject, ask at WP:FTN. If you need general help there's the WP:TEAHOUSE. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... Question 1: All what I did is quote him from his own books, how wasn't that considered as proper source for the material which I supplied? MagnetElectro (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for all of these questions I've given you links to policy and guidelines, I suggest that you read them carefully and then ask at the Teahouse if you still have questions, thus getting someone else's comments. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bauval again[edit]

We rarely use self-published books or non editorial-controlled blogs as sources, and definitely not for living people. See WP:BLPSPS. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... Question 2: Self-published books do not count as sources?? They contain authentic material that is protected for copyrights by Law, so why not?? MagnetElectro (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... Do you approve my latest edit on Bauval's page or should I expect yet another retraction from you? MagnetElectro (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... There is a lot of material on youtube (which were NOT posted by me obviously), could I cite and quote that material on wiki? MagnetElectro (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Ibrahim[edit]

As the page says, it's a list of articles with the same name. Every entry must have an article. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... Question 3: Would an Amazon's profile description field suffice to link to an article about an author? MagnetElectro (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of more entries on the pages of (103) and (33) numbers. MagnetElectro (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and I removed them. What the significance of a distance in the great pyramid in meters (or π meters) escapes me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... The significance thereof should indeed escape a computer engineer and mathematician, they were after all listed under the category of RELIGION rather than Science! Why would you even interfere therewith? The matter obviously lies outside your fields of expertise, shouldn't you have just passed on your worries to some other colleagues of yours (who are versed in this area) rather than claiming superpowers on wikipedia? MagnetElectro (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... I have UNDONE Arthur Rubin's subjective (yet unintentional) vandalism of editing my entries while offering a description on the TALK pages for this. MagnetElectro (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article [Ibrahim ibrahim] MagnetElectro (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following line "but the physical cross-sectional distance between their openings on the northern and southern faces of the pyramid equals to 33π as discovered by Ibrahim Ibrahim" on the page wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#King's_Chamber MagnetElectro (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the cateogry 'Alternative Egyptology' and added it to Ibrahim Ibrahim's article and that of R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz. MagnetElectro (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do have existing categories for pseudohistory, i.e. Schwaller de Lubicz is in the category category:Pseudohistorians. —Paleo Neonate – 20:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you understand English or just wishing to draw attention to yourself, but the notion of 'Alternative Egyptology' does not emanate from the notion of 'pseudohistory' linguistically speaking! So if you are inclined to enter into a debate, please do so somewhere else! This is not the time and page for it. MagnetElectro (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+ the term 'alternative Egyptology' is ALREADY stated on Schwaller de Lubicz's article as a tag. MagnetElectro (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ibrahim ibrahim for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ibrahim ibrahim 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/Ibrahim ibrahim until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, MagnetElectro. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No advertising, publicizing or promoting content is taking place, just citation as you yourselves have confirmed dear esteemed Wikipedia's staff members. MagnetElectro (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Ibrahim Ibrahim?[edit]

I just noticed that your username is the name of one of the "publishers" of his books. If you are, you must (and it's a legal requirement, not a policy or guideline" comply with WP:PAID. Read it carefully and use the templates, etc. You must not promote your own work on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: thought you should see the above, including the AfD. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No money is being paid for editing Wikipedia's content. MagnetElectro (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now please also answer the main question: are you Ibrahim Ibrahim? Bishonen | talk 20:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I am. MagnetElectro (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being frank and open about it. It does mean that you have been promoting your own work on Wikipedia, which is not allowed. I'm going to put a note about it at the deletion discussion. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

No I am NOT promoting my own work and you are NOT -academically speaking- allowed to accuse me (directly or indirectly) therewith. You can act according to your best interest since this is your domain of administration, nonetheless, your accusation is out of place and order! As long as my editing of wiki's contents is based on citing references and sources (whether you classify them as fringe or not), no sign of vandalism is there to begin such a stance of aggressiveness. MagnetElectro (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above section about conflict of interest. These are in relation to Wikipedia policies. Noone said that you were vandalizing. We are also not staff, but only other volunteers. —Paleo Neonate – 20:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states 'Conflict of interest rules in the public sphere mainly focus on financial relationships', and I have stated that no financial transactions are taking place for my own (or any other's) benefit through my editing. MagnetElectro (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting: avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors. —Paleo Neonate – 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that written? I cannot find it on Conflict_of_interest page! Could you please provide me with the proper page? Thanks in advance! MagnetElectro (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am STILL WAITING! I hope that you are aware of the fact that FAQs do not count, right Sir? MagnetElectro (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, and there was I thanking you and praising your honesty, Mr Ibrahim, both above and here. In view of your own stance of aggressiveness, I take it back. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not forget I am a newbie on wiki's platform and I am barely able to follow up on your messages folks! Nonetheless, I thank You Sir for thanking me but also I ask you kindly not to accuse me of anything as long as I provide a source/reference. You can take down whatever you like, but do not accuse me! MagnetElectro (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you're very welcome to take part in the deletion discussion. Here is the link again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim ibrahim. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thank You for pointing that out! I really needed such an incentive and info .. DONE. MagnetElectro (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Stiffness Matrix[edit]

I reverted, but you are welcome to reinstate conditional on exact published references. Thanks.Limit-theorem (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you folks suck the good spirit out of editors as if most of the contents in wiki's articles were thoroughly referenced! Anyway, since your reversion took place only now (and much later than the due date of 26 October 2017‎) in light of some other "conflict", I will not provide the reference now and will leave the article unedited in its flawed state. MagnetElectro (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+ Your fields are finance, probability theory and mathematical statistics which are areas that do not emanate from Physical sciences; why not leave the matter to other admins? Why interfere at the wrong moment? MagnetElectro (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I would STEP BACK and know my place first before committing changes on wikipedia based on a circulating frenzy of administration which is taking place! MagnetElectro (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Womb[edit]

I have created the article 'Cosmic Womb'. MagnetElectro (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.. whatever. MagnetElectro (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm this is unfortunate and could have been avoided by an attempt at understanding and cooperation. You could still appeal and request an unblock but if doing so please make sure to declare that you understand COI and that you intend to edit in relation to other topics. Relevant links: WP:NOTHERE, WP:BLOCK, WP:APPEAL, WP:STANDARDOFFER, WP:COI, WP:NBIO (in relation to the deleted biography) and finally WP:BLPFRINGE, WP:PSCI. The reason you were blocked was not necessarily for the creation of an article, but for behavioral reasons like failing to cooperate and understand policy. Editors are also free to believe what they want and come from many backgrounds, but this should not taint our editing, we must base articles on summaries of reliable sources (WP:RS, which a self published work is not: WP:SPS). This will be my last message here unless you are unblocked, as pursuing discussion could lead to revocation of talk page access, which would only make unblock requests more difficult. Administrators understand that we can learn and will help accordingly if they perceive good faith and intention to genuinely contribute to Wikipedia. Farewell, —Paleo Neonate – 23:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.. WHATEVER. MagnetElectro (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.. This platform is obviously constructed by and for Global Socialists. I certainly do NOT expect any of you to understand the implication thereof whether on its productivity and/or the quality of its articles. It will always remain as a fringe source of information in academia. MagnetElectro (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MagnetElectro (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Still blocked?[reply]