Prenote

Nomination of Law of the Universe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Law of the Universe 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/Law of the Universe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

~

Hello Prenote, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Law of the Universe for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Nsk92 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

________

Excuse me sir, Please don't speedy delete as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax.

I'm working on this very hard I would like to know if you have skills in Quantum Mechanics to propose a speedy deletion. Please expose your objections. If you are not skilled in Quantum Mechanics I consider ignorance spreading bad comments without the bases. I promise that I stay online waiting for critics to the page. — Prenote • (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, right. One does not have to be skilled in quantum mechanics to recognize a bunch of gibberish. ``In a pure perspective the intrinsec movement of an event in the space is admittable only accepting the existence of the absolute empty, the NOT[2], which is part of the formula. The crashing of the Symmetry virtually mathematized reaching the center of the Singularity from the poles whose limit existence is verified through the diversity of the reality itself." Hey, that's bloody brilliant! Nsk92 (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh my God, you're right I'm sorry, in effect what I wanted to say is that I found strange a Speedy deletion after few seconds. In effect I found incomplete the information concerning the paradoxes of contemporary Physics and the difficulties in reaching grand laws or theories. I'm going to clarify the point. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nsk92, I formatted the page in better understandable language, now the problem seems to be that is really technically high and seems to be an argumentation copied from University material. In effect they are difficult arguments for commonm people. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Grand Unified Theory

Content should be written for the layperson. Your additions to GUT need to be written in a much less technical manner. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

________

All the scientists that formulated general laws pretended them to be universal. The G.U.T. is the final one, and is a theory.

In effect I found incomplete the information concerning the paradoxes of contemporary Physics and the difficulties in reaching grand laws or theories. I'm going to clarify the point. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Grand Unified Theory to Law of the Universe (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. Please do this even if you only add the material temporarily as a test or as a framework for future work. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

________

Thank you I didn't know that. I'm just giving the right form to the article. Firstly seemed to be a vandalism or a hoax, and now you say that it's a copy of a good theoretical exposiotin of Quantistic arguments. Let me check. For sure it is impossible that I copied material already written. Thank you again. Regards. — Prenote • (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

All the scientists that formulated general laws pretended them to be universal. The G.U.T. is the final one, and is a theory.

In effect I found incomplete the information concerning the paradoxes of contemporary Physics and the difficulties in reaching grand laws or theories. I'm going to clarify the point. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I verified and in effect no modification has been historied from the intervention, so it is confirmed that there's has been no copying. Anyway you are right: I'm going to contact the University of Groningen in order to cite their book tomorrow, or I will change it with the original by Kant. In the meantime please dont delete the Article. — Prenote • (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.

(For details see my talk. The same threats were also made to two other users, XOR'easter and DrStrauss.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)