User talk:123qweasd

Welcome!

Hello, 123qweasd, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Strict logic (Brüning), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Largoplazo (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Strict logic (Brüning)

The article Strict logic (Brüning) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable theory from a non-notable book by a person who may not be notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, with no suitable coverage found via Google.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:P versus NP problem for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Please stop promoting your supposed proof Meters (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. Wikipedia makes exceptions (rules normally apply). I thought I could apply just this rule. Ps. I do not suppose this proof. 123qweasd (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You posted your supposed proof to wikiversity, and then you linked to it from an English Wikipedia talkpage. See WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:OR, and WP:SOAPBOX. Meters (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." 123qweasd (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's not a get out of jail free card to allow you to do whatever you like. How would letting you promote your supposed proof or continue pushing someone's theory and book help the encyclopedia? You have been here for almost 6 years and that's virtually every edit you have ever made. Meters (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may will ask sometime the publisher of the book to publish it in English. I see no sense in discussing a theory, which proofs itself. At this point, I also see no sense in collaborating in projects of Wikimedia Foundation. Ps. I do not suppose the proof. Ps. Again, I am sorry for my doing in this special case, especially for my wording, as it was quite goofy and a little bit arrogant retrospectivly. In the case concerning syllogism I waited some years for consens; just for my defense. Ps I do not feel to justify myself that I may not have any other areas of knowledge or interest. 123qweasd (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are thinking of asking the publisher of the book to also publish it in English, that suggests that you have a conflict of interest. Are you the author or somehow connected to the book or author? Please read WP:COI. Meters (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the theory is not acknowlaged, all projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are senseless. See Neutral Point of View

I have read some books of him, that is my connection. 123qweasd (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for repeating myself 123qweasd (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems quite stuck to me. I have two proprosals: The first is, you read my latest text of syllogism and make a picture of yourself. The second is, I write you a personal E-Mail, why I have chosen to read the book. But these are just proposals; I am sure you have your reasons, not reading it. 123qweasd (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(yet) 123qweasd (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are silly. 123qweasd (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:123qweasd. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Meters (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are even sillier than me; You are silly plus one. 123qweasd (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:123qweasd. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Meters (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I felt insulted first, as you didn't relate to the subject. 123qweasd (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologize for my insult. Have a nice day. 123qweasd (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]