Talk:11:11

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

/archive1

Original Research! Disambig Page!

Okay so, TheRingess doesn't seem to like me adding my well-researched and cited article. First he deleted it because it was "original research" (even though it wasn't), now he's deleting it because the page is a disambig page, even though there's no rule against turning a disambig page in to a regular article. If 11:11 is not a recognized phenomenon then why do we need a disambig page at all? Why are there no disambig pages for 11:10 and 11:12 hmm I wonder... -- GIR 00:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for a long time I've wished that this page did not exist at all. The simplest answer to why it exists is because fellow editors wish it to. Your previous assertion that all of the articles referenced in the page deal with the synchronicity belief; is not proven. The simplest answer as to why there are no articles for 11:10 and 11:12 is that no one has yet desired to create one. (that's assuming that they don't exist, I didn't check). For that matter, anyone can create a page for any time of the day if they so desire. TheRingess 00:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can tell you don't want the page to exist ;) And you know the reason there's no pages for 11:10 or 11:12 is because no one recognizes that as any kind of phenomenon. Where-as 11:11 is a notable enough phenomenon and enough people believe in it that it turns out people write songs and albums and movies after it. I know you believe that the whole 11:11 thing is just a coincidence, but do you also believe that people are naming movies and songs and albums "11:11" is just a coincidence too? -- GIR 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig pages are designed to help editors find different articles with the same title. Converting a disambig page to an article should only be done when there is nothing to disambiguate. Since the other 11:11 pages still exist, this should remain a disambig. If you believe you can satisfy WP:V, WP:CITE, & WP:NOR, then create a new article and add the link to it to this disambig. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I redirected this page to synchronicity. For several reasons.

The article contained a list of references to the time in 11:11 in popular songs. Those references can be included in each song's articles.
The article contained a list of books. If the books are notable enough, they should have their own articles.
No one has supplied any references to any sociological references to how widespread this belief is, where it originated from, etc. It seems overkill to have an article for every single synchronicity that people might believe in.
The only other section was a see also. Again any reference to 11:11 can be included on the individual articles.

Current Discussion

i added a statement about what 11:11 may refer to. i am the co-author of "The 11:11 Phenomenon" and i know what the book is about...at least my part, which is about my expression of 11:11 through the website i created. There is no reason for this to be deleted as it speaks the truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs).

Actually, the article is a disambiguation page, so material added should point to an article, not an external link.TheRingess (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. thanks for your anal retention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs).

No need for name calling, and no you did not fix it. The material you continue to add does not point to an existing article.TheRingess (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually...nevermind. i get it. thanks! i will end run around you :)

i didn't call you a name, but thanked you for your action. the world needs more rules, and thanks to people like you we get them. however, i figured something out...cheers and good luck on discovering the spirit of 11:11!! :)

Your comments have been far from civil or polite.TheRingess (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so what did i do wrong this time? hmmm? help me out then...i believe i am following the rules. how am i not and what can i do to fix that?

this is outrageous...i wrote a book on the subject. who are you and what gives you the right?

seriously...what makes you think you can own the wiki version of this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs).

That's a rather loaded question, I don't think I own this article. Please read WP:OWN for an article about what consitutes a claim of ownership. You took an article that was a redirect and changed it into your version. The article had been through extensive discussion already. The redirect was a result of those discussions. I might suggest that you create an entirely new article, call it something like 11:11 (gathering) or another appropriate title. Though gathering does not seem to me to be an appropriate adjective. I only say that after a brief reading of the material. "11:11 (forum)" or "11:11 (group)" might be a more appropriate title. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. If your article does not establish the notability of your group/gathering in regards to those guidelines, someone might nominate it for deletion. That's not meant personally. One of the most common reasons any article might be deleted is a failure to establish notability. You might also wish to read guidelines on attributability and the guidelines of neutrality. Please read WP:CIVIL. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is civility.TheRingess (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]