Talk:11:11: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Jesuslawyer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
TheRingess (talk | contribs) m prepare for archive |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[/archive1]] |
|||
== New Deletions == |
|||
Removed the biased description and other sources, which also show bias.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Jesuslawyer|Jesuslawyer]] ([[User talk:Jesuslawyer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jesuslawyer|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
I refer you to [[WP:OR|Wikipedia's guidelines on original research]] and [[WP:V|Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability]]. Perhaps we can also bring this in front of Wikipedia's arbitration committee? [[User:TheRingess|TheRingess]] 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
i have no problem having this deleted. what was wrong with the definition i put up? you're nuts to see that as somehow needing changing. in fact, it proves your motives here. you are just a power tripper. i would rather have this removed altogether...feel free to bring it up :) |
|||
== Articles for deletion == |
|||
The article was nominated for deletion on May 22, 2005, and the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11|result of the discussion]] was '''delete'''. Then the article was recreated a couple times and listed on AfD again on January 28, 2006. The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11:11 (2nd nomination)|result of the second discussion]] was '''keep'''. —[[User:Cleared as filed|Cleared as filed.]] 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Have decided to delete the Debunking section until interested editors provide sources. |
|||
If you are interested, please do not start with "Some believe...." do the following. |
|||
* Name the people who believe, so that readers can establish the significance of the believers. |
|||
* State when they stated their beliefs. |
|||
* State where they stated their beliefs. |
|||
* Do not summarize their beliefs, supply a direct quote. |
|||
== 1111tv Forum == |
|||
I deleted this section because it was a very pov edit about a non notable forum that basicaly did nothing but linked to the forum. |
|||
I moved the linked into the External Links section. |
|||
[[User:TheRingess|TheRingess]] 00:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
That is your pov. It is only your perceived power that allowed you to act on it. A legitimate theory was offered up. Do you belong to any 11:11 group?<small>—''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Jesuslawyer|Jesuslawyer]] ([[User talk:Jesuslawyer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jesuslawyer|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|||
== Personal Preference == |
|||
I can see you "TheRingess" have taken control of this page based on your history of edits. Remember this isn't your personal page to edit completely to your liking or understanding. Give other thoughts a chance before you do your chopping which you seem to do quite often. |
|||
If you don't experience the 11-11 phenomenon then perhaps you should sit sideline and let those whom do work on this particular subject matter.<small>—''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:NumberMan|NumberMan]] ([[User talk:NumberMan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NumberMan|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|||
Basically, I'm tempted to not even bother to reply to such a statement. |
|||
I have not "taken control" of this article. |
|||
Remember, any person can edit any article at any time on Wikipedia. |
|||
It seems like you and I are the only ones interested in editing it. |
|||
Are you mad because I removed the link to the 1111tv forum. |
|||
Basically, as far as I could tell, the material was meant to do nothing but '''drive traffic''' to the forum. |
|||
Remember Wikipedia is not a tool to promote any forum. |
|||
If the forum is notable enough (and there are standards for notability for forums) then it can have it's own article. |
|||
As far as letting only those with experience edit the article, well that directly contravenes Wikipedia's policies in ways too numerous to count. |
|||
The article still needs a lot of cleanup. It needs to cite some reputable, verifiable sources. See [[WP:V]] for guidelines on sources. And of course a neutral point of view is essential. |
|||
Perhaps there might be some material in reputable journals that approach the subject from an EthnoMathematical perspective. But I'm too busy to go looking. |
|||
[[User:TheRingess|TheRingess]] 05:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
You have control of this forum. And 1111tv was not trying to drum up traffic at all. That part still irritates me. Who are you to decide? Sure, we can all keep editing, but who wants to do that, and I get the feeling you wouldn't stop, so...why bother? You obviously control this page and like it :) |
|||
Do you see 11:11? |
|||
== Personal Preference II == |
|||
You'll have to pardon my lack of Wikipedia knowledge. This entire interface is rather cluncky when navigating and posting. |
|||
That new link is going to the same place as the other forum link and was added by another user. The new one should be removed. |
|||
This subject matter will most likely never be proved just as one cannot prove the existence of Satan, God, or Ghosts, Near Death Experiences etc... |
|||
Do people want to give up their real names and be quoted? Maybe and maybe not, if they did it would be deleted anyhow because some are just everyday people not famous writers, mathematicians, scientists and so forth. As you can see when the number is googled you will find thousands of hits from people in various forums whom say the exact same thing. They are all amazed there are web pages that deal in the subject matter because they thought they were the only ones whom noticed the 1111 thing. |
|||
It's nice that Wikipedia has this article so others can read up on it even if it is rather short and brief. As yet it's unexplainable. If you don't experience it then again why would someone who knows nothing about say surgery edit a wik page on surgery procedures or edit the Battle of Waterloo when you don't know the history of the event. Thats the point I'm making<small>—''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:NumberMan|NumberMan]] ([[User talk:NumberMan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NumberMan|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|||
Please read some more about Wikipedia. |
|||
This is not about '''proving''' the subject matter. |
|||
Please read [[WP:V|wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources]]. |
|||
Quotes can only be included in an article if they have already been published in a reputable, credible source. |
|||
Please also read up on [[WP:OR|Wikipedia's guidelines to original research]]. |
|||
Remember, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, you do not have to be an expert on the material covered in an article, to edit the article. |
|||
[[User:TheRingess|TheRingess]] 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Does Wikipedia Stifle Free Thought/Speech?== |
|||
Why are the thoughts and theories of thousands second to that of a couple of people who are basically making it up as they go? |
|||
"I deleted this section because it was a very pov edit about a non notable forum that basicaly did nothing but linked to the forum." |
|||
(Just so you know, this non notable forum is the busiest and most popular 1111 site running.) |
|||
That's all fine and dandy, but why are Solara and The 1111 Spirit Guardians listed? Everything about 11:11 is pov, since nobody knows what it means. 1111TV did not come here to drum up traffic, but to offer an alternative. Why can Solara and 1111SG link to their forums, especially since both have profited? 1111TV is non-profit. I have added another version, but I find your view of what is pov and what isn't, to be very skewed. I will take your action (I see you're into numbers) to be an indicator that 1111tv might just be on to something right. If you allow charismatics to define what really isn't (yet) and block the real voices of ALL who see it, then you should really take a look at why. |
|||
I'd rather see it removed altogether than to allow such arbitrary decisions, especially when they don't seem to make sense. |
|||
You have to understand that this is truly undefined beyond it being a phenomenon of people that 'see' it. This is not something easy to pin down and Wikipedia might want to keep the subject in mind when applying it's rules.<small>—''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Jesuslawyer|Jesuslawyer]] ([[User talk:Jesuslawyer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jesuslawyer|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|||
No it does not. Please read [[WP:V|wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources]]. This will help you understand more about Wikipedia. |
|||
Remember, truth alone is not sufficient to guarantee inclusion of material, the material must come from reliable, verifiable sources. |
|||
This page: [[WP:OR]] will help you understand why Wikipedia does not want original research. |
|||
[[User:TheRingess|TheRingess]] 05:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I tried twice to remove this. Are you itching for some sort of altercation? What good did it do to bring this back after the original author, me, deleted it? Does confrontation excite you or do you just like flexing your muscles and acting like you've got some sort of power? I know this kind and it's actually inspired a lot of good, so I should at least thank them for this. I am just very curious...what good did this do for you? |
|||
My name is Michael N Stanton and I wrote the above, but actually saw the point of the moderator and so thought twice about it and removed it. Why this person insists on keeping it here is beyond me, but whatever...I don't stand by those words (it was a reaction without much thought given) and so deleted them. At this point, only the moderator stands by them. Do you think I struck a chord? Of course I did :) |
|||
I am not angry or trying to start something, but why would you keep bringing this back from deletion? It was an admission of fault on my part. Are you looking for me to grovel or say sorry? OK- I'm sorry. |
|||
michael :) |
|||
ohhh..and thanks for keeping the theory in. I'm serious about that. I did try to write it to your specifications, which I admit to not reading at first. that's why i deleted the above, but feel free to keep it...whatever floats your boat :) |
|||
== Holding in Light? == |
|||
How does one hold in light anyhow? That is the funniest thing I've heard of. Rephrase the Lightworker theory? |
|||
== Latest Rewrites == |
|||
Basically, I removed the Groups section. I have several reasons for this and am listing them below. Remember for editors new to Wikipedia, I am not a moderator, simply a fellow editor. If you disagree with my edits, you can always revert them. It's considered polite to explain your reversions (as I am doing here). Here are my reasons. |
|||
#Any group that is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article, is probably notable enough to warrant an article of their own. They probably deserve more than a sentence or 2 that summarizes their beliefs. Also any article about the group would probably link here anyway. Since notable groups need more than a sentence or two, including them here and nowhere else could mean that this article becomes huge, in which case, we would probably split it up anyway by creating new articles. If a group is not notable enough to warrant an article of their own, then they are probably not notable enough to warrant inclusion here. |
|||
#Nor should we include theories about something that itself is a theory. Since there seems to be no reliable sources for some of the previous material included in this article, any theory included here would most likely count as [[WP:OR|original research]]. So according to Wikipedia's policies, does not belong. One example of what might be acceptable, would be research that is published in a reputable journal, that perhaps attempts to show how widespread this belief is and/or where and when it originated. |
|||
#I am leaving in the links to the books, for anyone wishing to explore the belief further. I am also leaving in the links to the websites. Remember, this does not constitute an endorsement of the material presented in the books or on the websites. They are included only because they relate to the belief in the synchronicity of the numbers. |
|||
P.S. please remember to "sign" comments on this talk page and others with <nowiki>~~~~</nowki> |
|||
~~~~ |
|||
</nowiki> |
|||
<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:TheRingess|TheRingess]] ([[User talk:TheRingess|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheRingess|contribs]]) 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC).</small> |
|||
:Hello, I'm the editor who originally recreated this article. Just want to say brilliant job on cleaning up and maintaining the article - there appears to be a lot more 11:11 fanatics out there then I thought, all bent on adding their own ideas to the article. I gave up on this article within a few days of creating it, so you have my admiration for keeping everything NPOV. Good luck. -[[User:Protofox|ryan-d]] 16:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== External links == |
|||
Wikipedia is not a link farm. After considerable thought I've removed the external links section. |
|||
#None of the links provide any further socialogical information about the belief. Are there any links that have done any research as to how widespread the belief is? Or where it originated? |
|||
#None of the original links were to groups that have articles on Wikipedia. If a group has an article then it could have a link on this page. |
|||
#Some of the links were links to what [[WP:OR|original research]]. |
|||
It seems that the link section in this article exists only to promote original research and non notable groups. |
|||
[[User:TheRingess|TheRingess]] 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||