User talk:Nazar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Nazar, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Academic Challenger 21:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Navagraha

I have explained the removal of info on the article talk page.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtigerxyz (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Help Desk

Just a note, I have responded to your help desk question. Happy editing! --omtay38 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Slyusarchuk Andriy.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Slyusarchuk Andriy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

hi

I like your positive outlook, too! thanks. Greetings, Sacca 15:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mitsube's issue...

Please kindly check User_talk:Mitsube#Very_bad_editing_style.... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This fellow is most likely a Sinhalese nationalist and Buddhist chauvinist from Sri Lanka. I did not have to time to spend on Hinduism and Buddhism article on which he has done a good hit job against Hindu sources twisting wiki rules. I am surprised and shocked to see this kind of aggresive and openly hostile intent of his edits with no effort conceal lack of neutrality. I myself am a follower of Japanese Mahayana Buddhist school and go to Zendo almost every other Sunday. The kind of hate he expresses in his edits for Hindu sources could have only developed in the Tamil/Sinhalese political cauldron of Sri Lanka. My two cents.--Satyashodak (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

NazarK and I are friends now, I hope! Mitsube (talk)

Replaceable fair use Image:Slyusarchuk Andriy.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Slyusarchuk Andriy.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Andriy Slyusarchuk

Hello Nazark, please do not add any self-claimed memory records of this person to any article. None of them are true. The records have not been shown under scientific circumstances and he never took part at an accepted memory championship. The world record for memorizing numbers is 2080 in ONE HOUR. He claims 5100 in two minutes. This shows how riddicolous those claims are. As long as the records are not accepted by the Guinness book, published in a peer-reviews scientific journal or repeated at a memory competition (which have got prize money of 90,000$ at the World Championships. If he could do, what he claims, we would have taken the money easily. Another proof, that he cants) - they can not be accepted. 94.216.213.26 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What I add are the reports of the press. The section of the Eidetic Memory article is titled 'People claimed to possess an eidetic memory'. I'm not saying these reports are 100% true and undeniably verified. But they are strongly related to the subject of the article, and may deserve further investigation, even to reliably debunk them. The ref in the article about Andriy Slyusarchuk is a direct citation from the press too. Thanks for your understanding. NazarK (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear NazarK, this man is a liar. His claims are not true. Eventhough you might like the idea of having a superstar in your hometown, please dont edit those claims into wikipedia. You can have a look at memory records under controlled circumstances and you will see, that this bullshit. The real pi record is just over 100,000 digits - not into the millions. The speed digits record is 405 digits in five minutes, not thousands in one minute. You say yourself he is poor at foreign languages - how does that match his self-claimed superior cv? You say yourself he made mistakes when reading mental images - how could he be able read of hundreds of pages of digits? Its just not possible and his claims of being able to do mind-reading also add to additional clues. Memoryexpert de (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not attentive to what I say. I say he's got personality problems, he's got too much self-esteem. He wants to be seen as a genius and he believes he's one (that's my own opinion, which I include only on the talk page). I've studied many reports of people who contacted him. His skills are not perfect. Yes, he occasionally makes mistakes, and I think (I'm not sure about that) that he's got poor foreign language skills. But, accordingly to hundreds of independently and also scientifically (at least by Ukrainian scientists) proven reports he's really got an exceptional photographic memory. And being able to recall a randomly chosen sequence of digits or figures or words out of hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of them, even after a few mistaken attempts, is an extraordinary achievement, in my opinion, and not only in my opinion (check the refs). And if you think he's a charlatan, well, I'd say, anything is possible, maybe he is one, but then he's an exceptional charlatan, who was able to mislead thousands of witnesses, among them dozens of academicians, professors and PhD holders... NazarK (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this further information! The skill of a magician is to cheat even highly intelligent people. Compare David Blaine or Derren Brown for example, who also do amazing memory performance where even intelligent people dont know, how they do this (but dont claim it is "real"). I sent an e-mail to his department two weeks ago but did not get a response yet. Someone else from England told me, he already had been invited last year to come to the World Memory Championships but did not and also refused any tests outside of his institute. Can you help me to write an Ukrainian letter to him, if he might have problems to understand my English mail? I wont pay his travel, but if he just memorizes 5000 digits in five minutes (he said, he did that in two minutes, so no problem, I guess), he can skip all nine other events and will still win easily. That would give gim 20000$ at least and international media attention and a independent proof. I think, that should be enough of motivation. Language is not a problem either: Already in 2009 we had an Ukrainian competitor and the language-based disciplines are offered in Ukrainian and someone with Russian and Ukrainian language skills will be there as an arbiter.Memoryexpert de (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I can help you write an Ukrainian letter to him. Write an English one on my talk page (it can also be a common letter from many Wikipedia Users (both skeptics and possible supporters) who are interested in the subject, this way it would have more appeal and cover a broader range of issues). I'll translate it into Ukrainian and do my best that he gets it. It would be good if WMC sends him an official invitation too, which would include some guarantees for the prize money and the terms of the competition. As far as I'm aware of his financial condition (and I know he can't even afford his own apartment - he lives in a University hostel), he'll probably not be able to pay for the international trip (not to mention the visa problems). Sponsors will be needed. In fact, as I stated before, he's a very weird person, and his material well-being and general living conditions seem much worse than those of an average Ukrainian professor/scientist of much lower status and practically no significant achievements. It seems he's totally not able to adequately take care of his material condition and well-being. In my opinion, he's also got a number of serious personality disorders, people who contact him in his 'bad mood times' say he can be very 'non-cooperative', to use the mild word. He occasionally gets away from the world and refuses to communicate with people for a week or a few weeks. During such periods he does not attend his scheduled University classes and other official meetings/events. It seems, his successful shining memory and hypnotic performances are more a well-played role, behind which is a broken depressed psyche. I noticed that he stated in one of his most recent interviews that the amount of visually perceived information he remembers is an impossibly heavy burden to carry. It drives him crazy and at times he can't bear it any more. Besides, he still believes himself to be an exceptional and underestimated genius. This makes him haughty, scornful, and disdainful in his relations with other ordinary people. This psychological barrier may be very difficult to overcome to get him cooperative for international tests (especially, if he'll have to show his inability to fluently communicate in foreign language). Well, that's so much I can tell. But I'll do my best to get him internationally tested. I'd also suggest and encourage some international verifiers (or media representatives) to come to L'viv and make their own tests in his native environment, where he feels secure and confident. To my best knowledge, most of his claims have been sufficiently independently verified to leave almost no chance for them to be untrue. NazarK (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If money is an issue for him, it should make it even more logical for him to take part. Since he would win at least 20,000 US$ without any problem, he could instantly become part of the Ukrainian upper class. Google says Lviv monthly average income is 300$ - so he can win 5,5 years of Lviv average salary in one weekend! And if he just can do 10% of what he says, there is not the slightest chance for any known competitor to beat him. And winning the event with a huge margin would make him a globally known genius! People like Dominic O Brien, eight times World Memory Champions, became very rich just because of their memory and if Mr. AS is really so keen on being recognized as a genius, this would be his stage. Fame, Money on the spot. If he knows about that and refuses to come, that speaks for itself.... 145.253.118.83 (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well. Sounds logical. But it's not enough to debunk any of his claims. And, as I said before, the guy is weird. There's not much logic in what he does. He's irrational (and, accordingly to him, that is one of the main keys to an outstanding eidetic memory; btw, he says that in order to memorize the smallest details of what you perceive you have to stop analyzing it; your analysis is what steals your attention and limits your memory; he compares his memory to a memory of a person during some catastrophe, or a terrible, shocking accident, when people are able to perceive the flow of time very slowly, and with very high intensity, memorizing every smallest detail; he says his perception has been like that continuously and permanently since his very early childhood). There may be many reasons why he hasn't participated in international tests yet. I hope this will happen sooner or later... NazarK (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Memory Championships take place since 1990, Pi-Memorizers got on stage in the early 80s and the last champions who memorized 100.000 digits spend many years on it with many hours of daily practise. Scientific Research has been done on Superior Memory and Eidetic Memory. We know pretty well, what is possible and what is not. Andriys claims are not. When the University of London looked out for people claiming to have an Eidetic Memory, many replied. But not a single one passed the Eidetic memory test. Not a single one. Never ever. All people in history who claimed to have an Eidetic Memory were liar, cheaters, sharlatans. All of them. No exception. And this man can even teach it? Most unlikely. By the way: If he really said, its like a memory after a catastrophe, than that is a huge proof that he lies: Since researchers proofed, that the memory about catastrophes seems to be like a slowmotion movie but usually is completely wrong!!!!! People think, they remember every detail. But they dont remember more (even less) - because of the stress involved, the brain gets very active - and hours or days later, has to organize the emotions: And makes details up, that never took place, by stuff coming in from chats, newspaper articles, what other people said... etc.!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.118.83 (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I do admit there's a possibility that he's a charlatan. I've stated it before. But that has yet to be proven, otherwise all what you say is not more than your personal analysis of the case, your speculation, and your own conclusions (your original research and your own logic). Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . As to the slow motion perception of the reality, it was a comparison A.S. used to illustrate the idea. It does not mean that his memory is totally like that. Again, I may repeat, the bulk of various independently verified evidence about the claims of A.S. is too large to simply disregard it based on the above logic. NazarK (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nazar, I've come across the page on Andriy Slyusarchuk that you have done a lot of editing on. There is a problem with a lot of the citations as they now link to the front page of a Ukranian newspaper and not the articles that you are presumably trying to use as evidence. Not wishing to delete the work you have done, could you try to find some other sources for the claims. Quoth 31 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and look into that as soon as possible. All links were directly to articles at the time I constructed the page. -- Nazar (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it oftens happens that when stories get archived the original link redirects to the front page. Hopefully they'll still be on the site somewhere. i would have looked myself but I am working from a translation which limits search capabilities. Quoth 31 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not look for the same articles in the same newspapers, as it would take longer. Just replaced the outdated links with new ones from other sources. There are literally hundreds of them... Please do let me know if you find any more outdated links. -- Nazar (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put my summary of the issues with the page on the discussion page. There are a lot of things that need to be discussed. Some of the more clear cut cases (a link to probably a different person) I am going to edit now, but the rest i will wait until you comment. Currently I believe the entire page needs a rewrite or entirely new sources need to be found to back up the claims he makes about his life. Quoth 31 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the discussion page. See there. -- Nazar (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Eidetic Memory. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.Memoryexpert de (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. However, I do not think your accusations are true. There's no my own original research in the info I add to the articles. The fragments I add about Andriy Slyusarchuk are based on press information, as well as the references to the official site of President of Ukraine ( http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/14234.html ), as well as the Official Book of Records of Ukraine ( http://www.book.adamant.ua/akt/2slysar4uk/1.htm ). It's a person's own choice whether he/she wishes to participate in World Memory Championships or not. And if he/she does not wish to do so, or does not know about this Championship, or does not / can not participate because of some other reason, this fact is not enough to debunk any of the claims about his/her records, especially if these records were witnessed by numerous professors and scientists during numerous demonstrations (please take your time to translate and study the refs I included before making further conclusions). In any case, as I stated on the talk page, the overwhelming amount of press information both in Russian and Ukrainian media (TV, Radio, Press, Internet) about this person is more than enough to make an article about him, even if he would have been a proven charlatan (which is not a fact, so far). NazarK (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear NazarK. Please read the page on how to cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_article_does_not_cite_any_references_or_sources. There you will find "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate." and "Statements about living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source." Therefore your sources are not Wikipedia appropriate. Memoryexpert de (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please also review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. " and "Outside of citations,[1] external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. " Memoryexpert de (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Letter

Dear Prof. Slyusarchuk,

word has spread about some amazing memory records you have set since 2006. They are really astonishing, since they beat all previous memory records recorded by a huge margin.

Did you know that there are annual World Memory Championships since 1990? In this events people from all over the world compete to find the person with the memory on earth! Usually there is high media attention involved and the winners win huge prize money!

There are ten discipline. One for example is the memorisation of digits within five minutes. The official World record is 405 digits. Since you memorized 5100 digits in two minutes in 2006, I assume you can easily and heavily improve this record and media all around the world would love to see this! Also with such a high score in this discipline (there are others based on digits as well), you will already be able to win the whole competition!

Since Ukrainian competitors took part in the past, you can request Ukrainian translations for the presented material in disciplines based on language.

In 2010 the event will take place in Guangzhou, China. The date is not confirmed yet, but it will be in the week from August 22nd to August 28th. It is already confirmed, that the winner of this years event will win at least 20,000 US$. The total prize money will be 90,000 US$ and the winners in each discipline also get money, so if you win all ten disciplines, it will be much more than 20,000 US$.

I think the chance to win so much money, the international attention and your ability in memorizing digits should raise your interest in competing. You can find further information (in English) on http://worldmemorychampionships.com. The organizing commity can help with visa issues. I am hoping, you will be competing and using this chance to show the world, what amazing memory records are possible - and to win the money!

Best regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memoryexpert de (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian translation

Шановний професоре Слюсарчук,

По світу йдуть чутки про надзвичайні рекорди запам’ятовування, встановлені Вами починаючи з 2006 року. Ці рекорди справді дивовижні, оскільки вони в десятки разів перевершують усі попередні зареєстровані рекорди пам’яті.

Чи відомо Вам про щорічний Чемпіонат Світу з Пам’яті, що проводиться з 1990 року? У цьому заході люди з усього світу змагаються, щоб визначити того, чия пам’ять найкраща на Землі! Зазвичай, подія користується великою увагою засобів масової інформації і переможці виграють великі грошові призи!

В Чемпіонаті 10 видів вправ. Одна з них, для прикладу, це запам’ятовування цифр протягом п’яти хвилин. Офіційний світовий рекорд становить 405 цифр. Оскільки Ви запам’ятали 5100 цифр за 2 хвилини у 2006 році, припускаю, що Ви зможете легко побити існуючий рекорд на порядок, і засоби масової інформації по всьому світу були б у захваті від цього! Також, отримавши такий високий результат у цій вправі (а є ще інші вправи, що також пов’язані з цифрами), Ви вже зможете виграти ціле змагання!

Оскільки українські учасники приймали участь у Чемпіонаті в минулому, Ви можете вимагати українські переклади презентованого матеріалу у тих вправах, що пов’язані з мовою.

У 2010 році ця подія відбуватиметься у Гуанчжоу, Китай. Дата ще не підтверджена, але це буде протягом тижня між 22-м та 28-м серпня. Уже затверджено, що переможець цьогорічного заходу виграє щонайменше 20,000 US$. Загальний призовий фонд становитиме 90,000 US$ і переможці у кожній дисципліні (вправі) також отримають грошові призи, отже якщо Ви виграєте усі десять дисциплін, то грошовий приз буде набагато більшим від 20,000 US$.

Думаю, що нагода виграти таку значну грошову суму, увага міжнародної спільноти, та Ваша здатність запам’ятовувати цифри повинні збудити Вашу зацікавленість у цьому змаганні. Ви можете знайти подальшу інформацію (англійською мовою) на http://worldmemorychampionships.com . Організаційний комітет зможе допомогти з візовими питаннями. Я сподіваюсь, що Ви приймете участь у змаганні ти використаєте цю нагоду щоб показати світу, які дивовижні рекорди пам’яті є можливими – а також виграєте грошовий приз!

З повагою,

---

Send this on official watermarked paper (or some other official letter with a respectable letterhead) on behalf of some serious organization to the following address:

професору А.Слюсарчуку
Кафедра загальних юридичних дисциплін
Львівський державний інститут
новітніх технологій та управління
ім. В'ячеслава Чорновола
вул. Генерала Чупринки, 130
м. Львів, 79057,
Україна / Ukraine

NazarK (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for translating, I will send the letter to him on official letter paper. Memoryexpert de (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So what happened next? Was this letter sent? Was there any answer?

As Wikipedia must be formal, the information about A. Slyusarchuk taken from public sources must surely stay here, even if no one believes it. Paloff (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Memoryexpert de (talk) was responsible for sending this letter. So, let's ask him about the progress. I'm very much interested myself. NazarK (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I sent the letter on official paper with the official stamp of the European Society of Memory to Mr. S. early February. So far he did not reply nor register to the World Memory Championships 2010. 145.253.118.83 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Slyusarchuk, Andriy.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Slyusarchuk, Andriy.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

New Article: Dhatus (Ayurveda)

I hope you are planning to expand this article, as it stands it may not be an article appropriate for Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Since the article is relatively new, and you may not have had time to flesh it out in greater detail, I thought I would post to your talk page rather than tag the article at this point. Thanks! ialsoagree (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for informing me. The subject is rather extensive and it deserves a comprehensive article. I'm not sure if my qualifications are quite enough to produce such an extensive article fully by myself, but I'll do my best. I think, I can add a few things to the current short definition when I have some more time. Maybe other people will help too :) NazarK (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd help myself but in the same boat, the topic is a bit beyond me. If you'd like, I can add a few tags that might help draw attention to the article so that others can help expand it? ialsoagree (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ye. Do add the tags. The philosophy of Dhatus is one of the fundamental topics of Ayurveda. It deserves more attention. I'll do my best regardlessly. NazarK (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up as soon as possible. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is continued at User talk:Nazar

Please leave your messages there. Nazar (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just moved your talk page so you can have all your talk history in one place. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's great! :) User talk:Nazar (usurped) still remains, I guess... Nazar (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

SUL merging

Request for Wiktionary has been submitted at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Changing_username#User:Naz_.E2.86.92_User:Nazar -- Nazar (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wiktionary merge is Done. Nazar (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Wikiversity has been submitted at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Changing_username#Usurpation -- Nazar (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikiversity merge is Done. Nazar (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Wikibooks has been submitted at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Reading_room/Administrative_Assistance/Renaming -- Nazar (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikibooks merge is Done. Nazar (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for NL Wikipedia has been submitted at nl:Wikipedia:Verzoek_voor_hernoeming_van_account#Nieuwe_verzoeken_.28New_requests.29 -- Nazar (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The NL Wikipedia merge is Done. -- Nazar (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for NO Wikipedia has been submitted at no:Wikipedia:Overtagelse_av_brukernavn#NazarK_to_Nazar -- Nazar (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Haros (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for MS Wikipedia has been submitted at ms:Wikipedia:Menukar_nama_pengguna#NazarK_.E2.86.92_Nazar -- Nazar (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Malay Wikipedia merge is Done. -- Nazar (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for ID Wikipedia has been submitted at id:Wikipedia:Pengambilalihan_nama_pengguna/Permohonan#NazarK_.E2.86.92_Nazar -- Nazar (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The ID Wikipedia merge is Done. -- Nazar (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for AR Wikipedia has been submitted at ar:ويكيبيديا:تغيير_اسم_المستخدم/انتزاعات -- Nazar (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedia merge is Done. -- Nazar (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nazar, I am no longer an active admin at Hindi Wikipedia. Sorry! --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Talk:Inedia

Several of the comments you made on Talk:Inedia could be interpreted as personal attacks against other editors, including [1] and [2]. Sometimes, when working with other editors, things get heated, and their actions can seem to be being made entirely to provoke or annoying you. It is important to try to remain cool in these situations, regardless of what the other editor does. I noticed several cases in the discussion on that page where you did seem to be trying to do this, and I appreciate it. However, a few of your comments were provocative, and while that certainly wouldn't excuse any similar behavior from the other editor (or his behavior excuse yours) it is an area where that discussion could be improved. I'd suggest you two take a break for a day or so, and when you come back to work on the article, try to work things out in the spirit of WP:COOL. And if you encounter any problems, do let me know. Prodego ^talk 02:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'll do my best to keep in the WP:COOL spirit. Thanks for not banning me so far. haha. It's tough to stand up flawlessly against an experienced editor. But I believe my point was generally correct.. Maybe more skill and balance should have been applied to its protection for better results... -- Nazar (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that describing other editors as showing "fanatic rationalism tendencies" and telling them to "have fun screwing up the article(s)" is also a personal attack, even if you put a little smiley face at the end. Take a look at WP:NPA for why this is a bad idea - you've made some fair points (and I've been meaning to get back to them when I've had a chance to watch the video), but as soon as you sink to the level of attacking other editors as "fanatics", it makes it much, much harder for the community to take you seriously. --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know you're right. I'm not perfect. My approach should be more positive and take into account the good input coming from those 'fanatics' (and they do a lot for Wikipedia, even if they just chip off the 'doubtful' pieces without contributing positively). Sorry for that. I'm a bit carried away by emotions, and that's the best I can do at this moment. Thanks again for your support. And don't take that video issue too seriously. Edamaruku is most probably right in his assumptions. Although the video does contain the failures I've pointed out. It's most likely only a question of time before new evidence pops up for some obvious deception in PJ testings. That's about it, and I'm just raging and being stubborn. :) -- Nazar (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

SUL

Just to let you know that I finally got my SUL completed. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Congratulations! -- Nazar (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations

[3] you can't just insert references to named citations that don't exist. If these are the scores please attribute proper citation.--Crossmr (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it :) -- Nazar (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research

I'm a little concerned that your comment of "If I find a way of amending it, I might come back to this issue later" is a declaration of intent to start a slow edit war, so I'll give you a formal warning over this - adding your own commentary to articles remains original research, and you should make sure you understand the basics of WP:OR before editing your opinions of a video clip (however much it seems "obvious") into an article. If you've got any questions, try raising them at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You must have missed the part where I say that I might come back to it if I get new reasons, like new arguments, or references, or new opinions. I'm sorry I'm not able to read and remember all the particular details of the Wiki Policies and Rules which you and Dr.K. are constantly referring to. But the common sense calls for the neutrality of the rendering. The current rendering isn't neutral enough. In the same time, rest assured that I do understand your point and formal limitations you're referring to. It's not my intention to viciously break the rules and/or start an edit war (either a slow or a quick one). I'm concerned for the best of Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't expect anyone to memorise all the policies, I'm still surprised by obscure ones myself. But you've been pointed to WP:OR many, many times now, and the very first paragraph of that policy says that we should avoid "analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources". Your thoughts on mislabelled video footage - and what they might mean for Edamaruku's evidence as a whole - is advancing a position not stated by any reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please talk about any article problems on the talk page of the article not on my talk. You have no consensus to add this material as you have been told by three editors so far. So I remind you of WP:3RR and I will report you if you continue. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. This is to advise you that I opened a thread there concerning your actions. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been moved to an archive. -- Nazar (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prahlad Jani. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've just violated all of the above and more, by reverting my referenced edits, not discussing it on the talk page, removing my polite warning on you talk page, naming it 'hectoring' etc., etc. -- Nazar (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And you've just reverted my 2nd 3RR warning, which I made after your removal of my 1st warning (I thought that maybe you don't like me speak personally to you and used an official template instead, just to be sure). Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The way this works is: You give someone a 3RR warning and if they acknowledge the receipt of your message then you don't give them another one. Acknowledgment of the first warning means that they are aware of the warning, so they got warned. Warning them again is not needed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this to me. Since you're so knowledgeable, can you give me a ref to official Wiki Policy saying the above? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK: "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." If you're giving them a second warning because they've broken 3RR after being warned the first time, then just report them to WP:AIV. --McGeddon (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, McGeddon. -- Nazar (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stay off my talkpage

I told you in my edit summary that I know about WP:3RR and gave you my reasons for reverting your spurious warning. Then you gave me another spurious 3RR warning for no other reason than harassing me. Stay off my talkpage. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is rather aggressive, my friend. I don't know so much as you about Wiki Policies, but common sense tells that Wikipedia pages (including private pages) are for discussion of Wikipedia related issues in first place, and not for the personal enjoyment of Dr.K. or any other user. I used your talk page for a relevant warning. Your removals and your subsequent comments are offensive and disrupt the article editing related process. I need to ask an advice of more experienced user(s), because now I don't really know when and how should I use your talk page, and if I should use it at all. Your own messages have been intimidating and muddling the issue at best. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Help me please

{{helpme}} I've addressed a friendly user here asking for an advice, but he's been inactive for almost 2 days and I would appreciate help now, if someone could assist. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As this is under discussion on the Administrators'_noticeboard, WP:ANI#Synthesis-push culminating in possible legal threats, it is not appropriate to enter into discussions elsewhere; the discussion there is ongoing, and any comments belong in the same place; thus avoiding any accusations of "forum shopping". Thanks,  Chzz  ►  18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll report it there. -- Nazar (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Unfortunately I have to visit your talkpage to inform you that there is a thread at ANI concerning your edits at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nazar. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's really time they do something about it. I'm tired having to bear all your insults and personal attacks... -- Nazar (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The ANI discussion has been archived here. -- Nazar (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

RSN

"Source for Prahlad Jani" discussion has been archived here. -- Nazar (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"ESOWatch.com" has been archived here. -- Nazar (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sudhirneuro.org, Skepdic.com and rationalistinternational.com" have been archived here. -- Nazar (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"DIPAS and Sterling Hospital" have been archived here. -- Nazar (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring against consensus at Prahlad Jani

It appears that you are edit-warring against the consensus of several other editors. Please note that if you revert more than 3 times within 24 hours, your account may be blocked without further notice. Even if you avoid that, however, a continued pattern of disrupting the article without support from any other editors will quickly lead to a block. If you can't get anybody else to agree with you, you must back away from the dispute, right or wrong! Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the multiple editors being of a different view than me about Prahlad Jani. However, I believe the edits they try and push into the article are very biased and are aimed at making the topic rendering reflect a skeptic POV they support. I'll, nevertheless, do my best to avoid violation of the policies. I currently consider the environment created here just too aggressive and prejudiced to continue constructive work, therefore I'll probably take a break for a while. Thank you for your warning. -- Nazar (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a good answer. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Jani

Thanks, I have the article on my watchlist, I'm aware when the talk page is updated. Can I ask that you tone down your habit of writing "haha" at the end of comments and edit summaries? Wikilinking without checking the target page was an honest mistake, I don't appreciate being laughed at for it. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy. I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at the situation. And at the incompetent, aggressive and prejudiced edits the majority of skeptics are making. Also at the petty word by word edit warring style the skeptics apply to this article. But there's nothing personal about it. I may be wrong in my observations. And you have my apologies if you feel offended. My impression is, however, that the problem here is not with me. Please consider going carefully through the NPOV principle of Wikipedia once more. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nazar, it might be a good idea to review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Suggesting that other editors are editing in an "...incompetent, aggressive and prejudiced..." manner with a "... petty word by word edit warring style..." will pretty much be taken as a personal attack, regardless of your intentions. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nuujinn and Co., please stop harassing me with continuous baseless accusations. Your imaginations and personal interpretations are really very rich, but what I point out is always the lacks and deficiencies of the article, caused by certain specific edits. If you want to remind someone of applying the principles of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, I'd suggest starting with Dr.K., as he's been violating them all the time and harassing me continuously. McGeddon's style was milder, but his point is generally the same. If you look closer, you'll find a whole gang of skeptics racketing the Wikipedia articles the rendering of which does not correspond to their own preferred views. So, in case you want to remind someone of WP:AGF etc., please start with these users. And also look closely if maybe by chance you may need that kind of reminder yourself. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with other editors' incivility, then by all means attempt to resolve it - here are some pointers for doing so, and I'd be happy to discuss any problems you perceive with my attitude on the project. But the fact that you feel other editors aren't following basic civility policy does not allow you to ignore that policy yourself. If you've read the policy enough to know that other editors are breaking it, you should not be breaking it yourself. --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's Ok. Can't resolve all the problems and study all the rules. But I'm trying to improve gradually. Thanks for your remarks. Sometimes it takes an imperfect step to see one's way into higher perfection. lol. -- Nazar (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is an ANI report which concerns your actions here. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI has been archived here. -- Nazar (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WQA

WQA has been archived here. -- Nazar (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This WQA and subsequent ANI had been an interesting example of Wikipedia's "high standards" and community morals. See also Lynching. Probably worthwhile an independent article on that. -- Nazar (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sterling Hospitals

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sterling Hospitals, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.hospitechhospitalconsultants.com/sterling_hospital.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Sterling Hospitals

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Sterling Hospitals, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://sterlinghospitals.com/ahmedabad/content.php?SecID=1&CatID=1 http://sterlinghospitals.com/ahmedabad/content.php?SecID=1&CatID=1 http://sterlinghospitals.com/ahmedabad/content.php?SecID=1&CatID=2 http://sterlinghospitals.com/ahmedabad/content.php?SecID=1&CatID=3 http://sterlinghospitals.com/ahmedabad/content.php?SecID=1&CatID=4%20Milestones, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Sterling Hospitals and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Sterling Hospitals, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Sterling Hospitals with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Sterling Hospitals. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Sterling Hospitals saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect to your note at the talk page of the article, I gather that you may be under the impression that this content is available for "free public distribution", but I'm afraid that we are not able to use it unless that is verified through one of the processes above. The website is clearly marked "Copyright @2010 Sterling Hospitals. All rights reserved." All content contributed to Wikipedia based on information from copyrighted sources must be written from scratch, except that brief quotations may be incorporated if clearly marked. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you have questions about this or about the verification procedure, please let me know. I will be watching your talk page for time. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So, what do you suggest as to how to write an article about Sterling Hospitals? Do you think it would be good to use that text as original information with brief quotations and relate the bulk of that info with my own words? -- Nazar (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that using a copyrighted work as the base of a new article creates what is legally defined as a derivative work. Brief quotations as certainly permitted, although they should be used for good reasons. Sometimes people use them just because it is difficult to find other ways to say the same thing. We have an essay that is engineered for helping people rewrite at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". What I would recommend, in line with those, is taking notes from your source in your own words and then compiling them into the start of a new article in the temporary space linked above. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I'll see what I can do (I'm afraid the time limits won't allow me to play this paraphrasing game too long). I suppose the old article will be deleted after a week, right? But it's probably OK. I understand the Copyright concerns. Thanks again... -- Nazar (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the rendering of the lead para to provide a short description with my own words at Talk:Sterling_Hospitals/Temp. Please let me know if this resolves any of the copyright issues. -- Nazar (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility, again

Reading your latest posts to Talk:Prahlad Jani, I'm concerned that you're still using heavily loaded Wikipedia terminology (such as "edit warring") without understanding its meaning or seriousness, and still labouring under the misapprehension that you can personally criticise other editors so long as you say "hmmm..." or add a smiley, or refer to them obliquely rather than by name (saying "I just seem to be somewhat influenced by the discussion style of certain "senior" participants here" rather than "every other editor here is unfairly antagonistic", or whatever you meant).

This makes it very hard for other editors to work alongside you. Please seriously consider avoiding all vandalism-related Wikipedia terminology, and if you ever find yourself typing a sentence where you're criticising another editor's attitude or authority, just delete that sentence, rather than trying to cushion it with "hmmm..." or "But let's focus on the topic..." - you have a backspace key, this isn't a spoken conversation. Sticking to the facts is always the best way to resolve a dispute. --McGeddon (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, McGeddon. This is not a court case, I hope? Are you not exaggerating a bit? I just said that the term "edit warring" had been introduced long ago by other editors here, not by me (and this is a fact). I'm simply following the style and terminology introduced by others, who seem to feel competent enough to regularly lecture me about proper behavior, while seemingly (maybe I'm just so wrong?) not following this behavior themselves. This is just how it feels on my side. Literally every constructive edit I try to make is either reverted, removed (with some insulting comments, like "remove spam", or "remove padding"), or turned into unending provocative dispute, where I'm continuously crash-tested on the minor particular details of how the particular policies should be applied, and if any smallest mistake is there on my part, then I'm taken to ANI and subjected to ban request procedure (of course, the initiators of these ANIs are very well aware of the skeptic majority in this community, and they always hope to finally get lucky in beating me through brute force of majority)... I'm just telling that this is not what Wikipedia editing is supposed to be to a user who tries to contribute. Please also consider, that most of the people who are so active in battling my edits here have not done a single constructive edit to introduce any new relevant information to the article in question. Unless I take the courage and add something, they'd probably just happily freeze it on the most skeptic version possible, making it a nothing but a severely biased derision of the efforts of researchers and people involved (that's how the Inedia article reads, btw). If you look at the edit history of some (I'll not say which) of those "very active" users, all they do is just "remove", "revert" and apply for a ban for newcomers (who very often do quite useful contributions, although maybe not always following the strictest code and style). Is this really a helpful and friendly style of editing for Wikipedia? I was practically lynched by the skeptic majority at the previous WQA. And this is a fact too, not a personal offense or aggressiveness on my part. This is a plain fact. And please do not tell me I'm being personally offensive now. What I say above is vital for the future of Wikipedia as a project, if it is supposed to be "open" and "neutral" at all. -- Nazar (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your position, but if you feel that other editors are acting unfairly or irrationally (and I completely agree that "remove spam" is an unhelpful edit summary), the most effective response is simply to challenge them directly and without emotion. Which you're doing most of the time - you just need to be much more careful when throwing around Wikipedia vandalism terminology, and to resist commenting on other editors' personal attitudes. I'd hope other editors are treating you with the same courtesy. --McGeddon (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the final religious symbol?

In User:Nazar/Userboxes/Religion Interest the tooltip that pops up when you mouseover the image lists the name of every symbol except the final one, a sort of "plus sign" with a "comb" at the end of each arm. What's that symbol? It looks like you might be taking a Wikibreak, so please let me know on my user talk page when you return. Thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check this article for some info. It's an ancient symbol of the Hands of God, used in pre-christian Slavic cults. It symbolizes the Sun, and is likely of common origin with the Svastika. -- Nazar (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kozyrev Mirror

The article Kozyrev Mirror has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

original research of non-notable pseudo-science/parapsyhology device

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.

Про эти зеркала вообще кто-нибудь в АИ высказывался?

И, опять же, сами написали что " причем употребление его имени в связи с этими зеркалами не вполне корректно:"

Чтобы сразу стало ясно - обозначьте, чем вызван ваш интерес к этой теме. `a5b (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Спасибо. У меня нет особого интереса именно к этой теме. После создания статьи я больше к ней не возвращался. Статью написал, когда один из моих знакомых долго и с большим рвением рассказывал мне об этих чудесных зеркалах. С точки зрения здравого скепсиса мне захотелось быстренько почитать более-менее нейтральную статью на эту тему. К моему удивлению, я не нашёл её в Википедии (ни русской, ни английской). Потом, перелопатив десятки разных источников, большинство из которых дают очень тенденциозную оценку этой темы, решил сам написать (или хотя бы начать писать) нейтральную статью в Вики. С моей точки зрения, она очень нужна тем, кто хочет познакомиться с нейтральной точкой зрения на эту тему, и просто получить выжимку имеющейся информации (как со стороны скептиков, так и со стороны апологетов). -- Nazar (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Угу. Только вот в местной, английской версии статьи вы написали, что зеркала изобретены Козыревым, что, вроде как, не есть правда. Еще бы как-нибудь отметить что это все псевдонаука (что-то вроде нашего {{non-academic}}) `a5b (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Это не я написал. Это просто сжатый перевод выдержек из использованных источников. Если у Вас есть другие источники -- флаг Вам в руки! Для псевдонауки здесь есть такое понятие как WP:FRINGE. Загляните также в Wikipedia:WikiProject_Alternative_Views и Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism -- там соответственно проекты сторонников и противников похожих взглядов и теорий. В любом случае не забывайте, что цель Википедии суть не отстаивание или опровержение определённых теорий (будь-то превдо-научных, или строго академических), а предоставление информации о темах, которые получили достаточное распространение в обществе. -- Nazar (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

И вот еще - вы сослались на энциклопедию загадок тайн и тп, но принято указывать страницы, на которых идет речь о предмете статьи. Ибо я в гугл букс не смог найти этих зеркал в данной энциклопедии. `a5b (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Вот Вам электронная версия на нужной странице, а вот ещё куча ссылок. Пользуйтесь поиском Google, пожалуйста, прежде чем задавать подобные вопросы. -- Nazar (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Вот ссылка из статьи (англ.): [4] Попробовал гуглобуксом поискать по этой книжке козырева и зеркала - не нашел. Поэтому и спрашиваю. `a5b (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Указанная вами в статье выходная информация (и ссылка на гугл букс) не относится к произведению Голубева М. По произведению Голубева М выходной информации не нашел. Нет ли у вас isbn той книги, которую вы использовали? `a5b (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Да. Спасибо за внимательность. Это разные книги... За пару минут сейчас не нахожу. Копать глубже нету времени. Поставьте пока просто автора и название, Москва 2006, там разберёмся... -- Nazar (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lee Carroll

I just reverted your last edits as the two I checked didn't follow our guidelines, ie you described Mara Ordemann as an independent author although she is clearly a Kryon believer, and I'm not sure how many of your references are self-published but the one I checked, published by Mandala, clearly is [5]. Remember also this is an encyclopedia, would you expect to find those two paragraphs in an encyclopedia in a library? Find some clearly reliable sources (by our criteria) published by established publishers and report what they say about Carroll and you may save the article. You might even get to me change my !vote. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you expect me to find. I personally haven't read much of those books about Kryon by other authors, except for some of Lee Carroll's own books. It's hard for me to say whether there are any publications about Lee Carroll in "clearly reliable sources (by our criteria) published by established publishers", as I don't have the capacity to review that much information. I know that there are many books about Kryon's messages, but I also know that most of them are by people who are from New Age. They are not necessarily directly associated with Lee Carroll (though they may have had contacts with him), because they address Kryon, which they believe is an independent spirit, and not Lee Carroll's creation. But they usually speak much based on Lee Carroll's ideas and his channelings. Maybe there are some skeptic book publications too, but then they would be a minority which is hard to find. I don't see why some author being a "Kryon believer" as you say makes such an author not good enough. It's an independent author still. It's his/her own opinion whether to believe in Kryon or not. If you want skeptic opinions, there's plenty of them in French press references, as they have been fighting Kryon as a sect in France for many years. Should be good enough, I guess... -- Nazar (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I also don't quite understand your point about 'self-published' sources. Any author who publishes his own works is 'self-published', unless he or she publishes these works in some peer-reviewed journal or in a collection of works under supervision of some editorial board. The latter cases are not very common for fiction publications, I guess... But I'm not much of an expert on that, so please enlighten me, if I'm wrong... -- Nazar (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in defense of the Lee Carroll article especially your restructuring of the article and your digging out of more mainstream notability. It was a close thing that it has been kept for the time being. I suspect that with the 2012 phenomenon taking place next year there will be more attention from reliable sources and Carroll's notability can be firmly established. Lumos3 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It would not have been possible without your participation. Regarding the notability of Lee Carroll and Kryon, I think it's obvious enough even given the refs we've got by now. Surely, he can't boast a broad and excellent quality coverage in mainstream sources. But, taking into account the specifics of his field, the volume of his book sales and worldwide popularity, there should be no doubt about the value of an article about him. The difficult discussion we had is just another evidence of how biased the dominating majority of active Wiki editors are. Their reasoning is based on personal tastes/distastes, backed up by skilled selective use of bureaucratic requirements provided in the current official policies. I also believe the formal Wiki guidelines need to be adjusted and made at least a bit more open... Thanks so far... -- Nazar (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Orginal Research

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Time, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Wheel of time. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Could you please explain why you claim the material is "unsourced" if I provided references? Would you find it more appropriate if I added direct quotations from those books? I could do that as well, but they would be somewhat bulky if I were to convey the same range of information I included into the short summaries I added to the pages... With the time article I thought: Well, this is a big article on a major mainstream topic, so maybe my additions weren't of the high enough quality (though later I thought that other information included in the Religion section does not seem to have that many sources too). But what's the problem with the Wheel of time article? Please kindly explain. -- Nazar (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. "Unsourced" is not the same as wp:UNSOURCED. You have sources but they are strictly wp:primary sources, and the text you entered, first in Time and then in Wheel of time, is a synthesis (aka wp:original research) from those sources. What you need for this addition is a good solid wp:secondary source that makes the analysis you have made, specially in this somewhat fringy field. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not make any analysis. What I included is a shortened rendering of the ideas expressed in a few books, which I referenced. I also do not seem to find any wp:secondary sources for the other things included into the religion section of that article. If necessary, I could also provide direct quotations. -- Nazar (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that secondary sources are really needed for this one. If there aren't any, that would certainly undermine the wp:notability of the topic. Direct quotations usually don't increase that, specially when they serve as a primary source for the actual proposed addition. - DVdm (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Umm. Below I include a few quotes for your reference. These are from Kryon, which Lee Carroll claims to channel (so, at least Lee Carroll himself does not say he's a primary source of these ideas). The ideas are discussed in other New Age books too, though the wording and depiction may differ:

Kryon:

"Spirit sees things differently than you do. You work in a linear time frame and Spirit does not."

"Imagine a train track that is constructed in a very large circle. There is a small train on it that represents you. It is always in motion, traveling approximately the same speed. The track is your linear time frame and the train is you, in linear time motion, always moving forward from where you were to where you will be. Since the Universe built the track, and the tracks around it of other linear time events, it knows exactly where it is going, and what events will eventually come along to break your circle. At any time we wish, we can look to the left or right, observing not only what was, but the place the train will be in the future. This is how we can be in the static "now" while you are in motion."

"What we do not know, however, is what you are going to do with your train on the track we have built. How many cars will you add or subtract; what color will the train be? Will you destroy the train? Will you clean it and repair it, or let it go into disrepair until it stops? Will you make it more efficient, thereby changing its speed? All these things are open to you."

There are more quotes to elaborate that (which basically sum up to what I wrote in my additions to the articles).

I believe it's very relevant to include that info into the Time article, as it gives idea about concepts of time adopted by the New Age community, which includes millions of followers (if not dozens of millions).

-- Nazar (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It souds like some romantic armchair philosopher's personal musings, severely lacking notability for a time-related article. Perhaps — but even that I doubt, given zero secondary sources — this could have a place in an article about that author. - DVdm (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. :) Thanks for your opinion. Seemed like a nice philosophical concept to me. -- Nazar (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wow! Thanks :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Lee Carroll. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SudoGhost 09:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. No personal attacks intended there. I'd encourage you to stay cool as well and focus on the article content. -- Nazar (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but the way it was written, that the other editors are "motivated by personal prejudices", even if true (which is doubtful), isn't the best way to get others to see your side, and would make some people confrontational, that's all. Take care. - SudoGhost 10:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, coming to the article page to do nothing but delete constructive efforts or its real builders and threaten them with "Rest assured, ... it will get deleted ... and you won't get to have your way", which seemed to be the summary of the opposing side's points in the AfD discussion, doesn't really really look to be conducive to establishing creative cooperation as well... Just a note. I'm not going to sue anyone for that. Take care as well. -- Nazar (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Nahar (alphabet), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assyrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Ukraine

Привіт! I noticed you are interested in Ukraine-related articles, so you may want to check out the WikiProject Ukraine, a tool to help perfect the Ukrainian related articles on the English Wikipedia. We would be glad to have you as a member of WikiProject Ukraine! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thx. Joined. -- Nazar (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Indigo children, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you please kindly provide a rationale and link the specific edits which you find disruptive? Thanks. Please also take such issues to the talk page before describing someone's edits as disruptive editing. -- Nazar (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, you inserted into the article a link to a site where people who keep selling this concept whine that Wikipedia's article on the topic is insufficiently credulous. You continue to attach undue importance to Lee Carroll and his Kryon stuff, and ignore the way the rest of the world treats these claims. You keep trying to de-emphasize the fact that this concept has been presented as some kind of pseudo-scientific fact instead of an unsubstantiated New Age meme. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your points. Thank you for sharing them. In my opinion, to retain the NPOV of the article, it is important to accurately render the concept as presented by its original authors. Then, the criticism may follow. If the original concept is not adequately presented, the article's neutrality and comprehensiveness suffers, and the bias towards the negative and baseless criticism is obvious to ensue. I find your accusations of disruptive editing to be unsubstantiated, offensive, and constituting a form of a personal attack. Please kindly refrain from such practice in future. Also, please take such issues to the article talk page in first place. Your private opinion is not necessarily the only one possible, and other editors may have a word to say. Thank you. -- Nazar (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The original author of the idea was Tappe, a self-described parapsychologist; thus it falls under pseudo-science in its origins. I myself do not feel that pointing out your longstanding pattern of NPOV-violating edits constitutes a personal attack; rather, I feel that it is a dispassionate assessment of your role in this article. I will leave it to other editors to comment as they see fit. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please kindly keep such sort of issues to the article talk page, and if possible Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. -- Nazar (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Nahar (alphabet)

I've tagged Nahar (alphabet) for speedy deletion as a hoax. I'll assume good faith and accept you did not know that it was made up by a Cthulhu mythos group, the sort that think that the Simon Necronomicon is authentic. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I contested the deletion here. If you're interested in the background, I was pointed to this alphabet by a friend of mine some time ago. I suspected, that it may be made up, but did not know much of the details, as I'm not that much into Cthulhu mythos lore. Regardless of its origin (which I wasn't sure about) I was still impressed by the imagination it was made with. I just made a quick article for reference, based on the sources I could dig up in the Internet. I do not think you'll find many fictional alphabets of that level of complexity and elaboration. This is a notable phenomenon, in my opinion. You may update the article if you got reliable refs for it being artificially created or belonging to some modern fantasy cult. I just could not find such refs and made it based on what was available. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, it's on you to prove it's not a hoax. The Book of Dagon hardly does that, especially since it contains outright references to the Cthulhu mythos. It does not meet the general notability guideline, as there are currently no reliable sources independant of the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. TY. Please take it to the article talk page. -- Nazar (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a joke, isn't it? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you addressing me here? What are you referring to then? No, I did not make that article as a joke, if that's your question. Neither as a hoax, as Ian.thomson imagined. -- Nazar (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am. You have been a contributor here for five years, and yet you created an article on a fictional alphabet, sourced to works of fiction, saying "Regardless of its origin (which I wasn't sure about)" and have now added references to the "Book of Dagon", a self-published work claiming to be an ancient grimoire, about which there appear to be no independent sources, and of zero reliability. This seems to be one of: an radical misunderstanding of the concept of an encyclopaedia scarcely credible in an editor of five years standing; a joke which you plan to unveil at some point in the near future; hoaxing by deliberate insertion of misinformation; or contributions in reckless disregard of the need for accuracy and reliability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you see it a bit simpler. I'm an inclusionist and eventualist. So, I'm generally in a habit of adding stuff I come across, which I find useful, and which is not yet covered in Wikipedia. My interests also tend to be in the area of various fringe theories and extraordinary, unusual things (see my editing history). See also WP:Bold. Please also consider that I don't generally support the current Wikipedia's notability policy, as I find it too restrictive and crippling for a proper development of this project (though I do respect its current state and limitations, as a community platform, where certain agreements are in force at a given moment). Also, Wikipedia has never been based solely on strict academic and scholarly sources, neither do I think that it should ever be that. Now look a bit backwards, and reconstruct the situation, where a friend of mine shows me some strange, but seemingly well-developed alphabet. I try to find some info on it in Wikipedia, and I see that it's not there. Then, since it's not there, I simply add it, based on what I can find through Google for a start, hoping for it to eventually develop further (also with the help of other editors). Hope that satisfied your curiosity. Cheers! ;) -- Nazar (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your notion of eventualism comes perilously close to saying that you'll write any old stuff and eventually someone else will do the work of getting it right. This is not the way to write an encyclopaedia. If you do not have good reason to believe that what you are writing is correct, then do not write it. If you do not believe that what you are writing represents fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, then do not write it. If you cannot verify what you are writing by reference to reliable sources, then do not write it. If what you are writing is something you would be ashamed to be associated with in public, then do not write it. If what you are writing is going to cost other editors a lot of time and trouble sorting it out, then do not write it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

These are good points. I wish they were also kept by other editors here on Wiki (which does not seem to be the case), though, I'd also say you set the threshold too high, and it's hardly possible to always perfectly follow all this in real practice. But I'll do my best! -- Nazar (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana and can you give the page number and a quote? Ditto Block and Price. The lack of these means they can't be verified, we can't read entire books to see what they say about this subject. Тайны червя is in fact the same thing as the De Vermis Mysteriis it shouldn't be an additional reference. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I haven't read the Encyclopedia Cthulhiana, neither the Lovecraft Lexicon (though I did find the De Vermis Mysteriis and Unaussprechlichen Kulten mentioned there). I found a number of Russian books related to the area, and the alphabet is used in them. I haven't examined these very thoroughly, though. They seem rather well developed, but it's likely that they are the creation of fans, as I can't find them except for PDF and online versions (see http://www.litportal.kiev.ua/category/magik for instance). I don't think I'll be able to find some significantly stronger arguments in the nearest future. Maybe when some more material is published, where the alphabet is used, it may be further discussed and the article eventually further developed. If you decide to delete it now, well, that's your right, I guess. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

De Vermis Mysteriis is a fictional work -- I don't mean it is a work of fiction, which would be bad enough for a reference, I mean that it does not actually exist. To cite it as a reference is at best careless and at worst deceptive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. My edits were not intended as a deception. All I included into the article was referenced to the sources. If you find these sources unreliable, that's another issue. See my above reply as well. The Russian titles I refer to do exist and they do use the alphabet, but I guess that'll not be enough, so let's just drop it. Thanks for the discussion, and I've learned myself a lot about Cthulhu mythos in the process of it, which is an achievement as well. :) -- Nazar (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Nahar (alphabet) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nahar (alphabet) 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/Nahar (alphabet) 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 template from the top of the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1