Kevanhashemi

Welcome!

Hello, Kevanhashemi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

HSC

Use the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I see your having problems with an article "Kevanhashemi" i take it your from the Fisher School of Physics. I am not sure about Grue and bleen, but would you have a references from the School of Physics and not your personal host site? I think this might help you...Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am with the Fisher School of Physics. I'll put the paper on our department website and link to it there. What's surprising me on the Grue and bleen page is that the content I have posted is clear and obvious, and yet this one fellow keeps deleting it. Even without the reference, my addition stands upon its own.--Kevan Hashemi 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! np anyway you can talk to me is fine..my page your page whatever..So i see it was deleted again!!!..Ok so what to do now?.Well first can we find the paper you did some time ago cited by some journal etc..Basically what the other editor is saying is that he believes you wrote the paper (i do believe you did as well) ..the problem he is saying is hes not sure if the greater community has endorsed this view... so what we need to find is a website book journal etc..that has published this view or even recognized its existence. ..I would like to let you know i have no idea about the topic...I just try to help new editors with problems that come up...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for the posting of original research. Period. Full stop. If an assertion is not backed by reliable sources, such as publications in academic journals and the like, it may not be added here. We are a secondary compilation of information already published elsewhere; a statement like my addition stands upon its own is meaningless if the addition cannot be properly cited to a suitable venue (not your own website and the like). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike: If we take your position, then we must delete all three responses on the Grue/Green page, because none of them are backed up by any references. Take the second paragraph in the responses section: where is there any backup for its rather non-sensical argument? So either delete all responses, or leave mine in. If you don't want me to link to my own work, then fine. We'll leave out the link.--Kevan Hashemi 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Buzzsherman: I can't find my own answer to the New Riddle in a philosophical journal. But then again, I can't find the responses that already exist on that page in any journal. I have read a couple of books on the subject, and I think whoever wrote the page invented their own responses and counter-arguments. So, I suggest we delete the entire Responses section, or we allow people to insert their own interpretations of existing responses. My response is so obvious I assumed every scientist already knows it is true.--Kevan Hashemi 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

All: Having said all that, I will absolutely go with the majority here and desist from posting to the Grue/Green page if that's the consensus opinion.--Kevan Hashemi 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)