Talk:11:11
Articles for deletion
The article was nominated for deletion on May 22, 2005, and the result of the discussion was delete. Then the article was recreated a couple times and listed on AfD again on January 28, 2006. The result of the second discussion was keep. —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. TheRingess 00:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NumberMan (talk • contribs) .
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.