User talk:Lakinekaki

Welcome!

Hello, Lakinekaki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Someone should welcome you here before you get in an argument (WP actually has a rule-- don't bite the newbies.) You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, there are many other wikiprojects as well. linas 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Bios theory

Lakinekaki - saw your comment on your recent edit on chaos theory. It is better practice to leave messages on users' talk pages rather than embedding them in edit comments, where they are easily missed. I have read the bios theory article and the Captual Institute web page, and I really can't see what makes "biotic motion" any different from chaotic behaviour. What, in mathematical terms, characterises the transition from chaos to "bios" - how exactly can you tell that a system is behaving "biotically" and not just chaotically (in the mathematical sense of the word) ? Gandalf61 17:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf61 - I can say few things about chaotic and biotic motion: first, chaotic motion is bounded to one or more attractors, and as is written on chaos theory page, it has dense trajectories (by the way, there is an error on chaos page - chaotic motion is not necessarily periodic as is described in chaotic motion section). This is not true for biotic motion. In mathematical sense, you can measure a few factors to distinguish between the two. In chaos, any two consecutive data points can be anywhere within the range of the series. In bios, this is not true. Bios is more "continuous". Also, by doing quantitative recurrence analysis, chaotic and biotic series give qualitatively different results caused by different natures of their motions. "What, in mathematical terms, characterises the transition from chaos to "bios"?" An "escape" from an attractor. (as I see it) Also, paper you read is kind of old, there are more recent papers about the methods used in distinguishing between chaos and bios. Lakinekaki

I agree with Gandalf -- Based on what is written here, I cannot distinguish chaos from bios. I tend to like strict, rigorous mathematical formulations, because that's how I understand things. The looseness and handwaving claims of "oh its just different but we can't explain how" is rather annoying. Maybe Bios is different, but the leading example provided -- $A_{n+1}=A_{n}+g\sin(A_{n})$ is the "famous" circle map, studied for some 50-odd years now. To suddenly call this "biotic" is unusual. (I posted slightly more detailed refs on the article talk page). linas 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lakinekaki - I have answered your question on the chaos theory talk page - my answer is immediately below your bifurcation diagram. Gandalf61 14:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Speciation a mechanism of evolution?

Hi Lakinekaki,

Thanks for your message. I think speciation is an outcome of evolution. It is not a mechanism; the mechanism consists of the microevolutionary forces (mutation, recombination, drift, selection and possibly gene flow/migration). I think that's how "mechanism of evolution" is usually defined, and I think we should keep it that way on wikipedia. Best regards - Samsara 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No fighting, please

See my comments on Talk:Chaos theory. It is not a good idea for you to start out on WP by picking fights with other editors. Please try to be civil, and when other people ask you questions, please respond to them as questions, rather than as attacks. linas 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ko to tamo peva

Hi! The reason your article was deleted twice is that it tells nothing about this movie beyond a single statement about how great it is. There is no plot synopsis, no cast list, no direction list, no studio name, no year of production, no awards, nothing. You may, of course, repost a new article under the same title but please add some basic information about the movie. - Lucky 6.9 05:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that is an encyclopedia article! Great job! - Lucky 6.9 06:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you L. Kovacevic ?

Lakinekaki - a Google search shows that a Lazar Kovacevic has used Lakinekaki as an e-mail address. And there is an L. Kovacevic listed as the joint author of at least two of the papers referenced in the bios theory article, which you are promoting so actively. Are you this same L. Kovacevic ? If you are, then I suggest that you make this clear on the chaos theory talk page, otherwise your references to the "authors" of bios theory papers in the third person could be construed as misleading. If you are not L. Kovacevic, and you have no connection with the authors of the bios theory papers, then I suggest you also make this clear, so that others are not misled by a coincidence of user names. Gandalf61 10:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am little concerned about people trying to find out my indentity? What was the purpose of your search. Will you also try to find my telephone number and address on the internet? Will you also try to sneak in the dark when I am returning home? Maybe I would use my real name if I wanted people to know. Would you tell us your real name? Also, how is this relevant for discussion? Also, as I can see from references, L. Kovacevic had participated in the paper titled: Bios Data Analyzer which also has a url reference among external links, and it shows reference for a set of computer programs, not the bios theory. The other refference talks about biotic patterns in physical, biological and mathematical processes, which seems to be the application of bios theory, not it's definition. Even if what you are saying is true that I am specified Lazar Kovacevic, my refference to the "authors" of bios theory papers would be misleading? Did you exhaust all your arguments, and are trying to be personal now? If you are pretty young lady, I may be interested in getting more personal, but I have a reason to doubt that you are a lady.Lakinekaki 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume the above is a tacit admission that you are indeed Lazar Kovacevic. It is dishonest to represent yourself as someone other than who you are. It appears that you are promoting your own theories under an assumed pseudonym; this is intellectually dishonest. The insinuating tone of your reply upon being outed is also highly inappropriate, and I think it would be appropriate to apologize to Gandalf61 for this childish attack on him. Behaving like this will win you no freinds here at WP. linas 17:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Linas, I am not representing myself as someone who I am not. I am using the same pseudonim in many different places where I have user accounts. If I wanted to pretend being someone else, I would invent different nickname. I am not promoting my own theories, because I do not consider myself author of these theories. I have been familiar with the bios theory for some time, and I have helped in development of computer programs for time series analysis that use methods invented by the real authors of the bios theory. I do not think that I have been dishonest. Maybe if I wanted to use my computer skills, I could find out your real names, and eventually come to discovery that some of you have published papers in the chaos theory, and therefore are promoting your own theories, and therefore are being intellectually dishonest. I don't see the point of all this, because that would really not change the arguments in the discussion. In fact, I am so much against this attachment of arguments to persons that I have recently developed a new kind of forum for discussing ideas anonimously. It is at http://www.exploreideas.com/ and if you read the page first time here you will see that I really like analyzing ideas and not who said them. Lakinekaki 18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have independently grown concerned about your real life identity, Lakinekaki (see next section). Since the website you mention is registered to Lazar Kovacevic of Chicago, as I understand it, you have confessed to being Kovacevic in real life. I note that you do imply on your user page that you have earned a "foreign" engineering degree, and at his website, Kovacevic does claim to have earned a BSEE from the University of Belgrade. ---CH 04:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one. Other users know this. XaosBits, and others. My comments above and my userpage are quite clear about that.Lakinekaki 11:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this, and thank you for confirming your identity. Lakinekaki, in the spirit of WP:AGF, I speculate that you might simply not have thought about the implications of creating a credulous article concerning a dubious "theory" with which you are associated (and apparently even depend upon for livelihood). Whatever the outcome of the AfD, I hope you will in future always bear in mind possible conflicts of interest of this kind. If you declare your affiliations "up front" and generally behave in an honest fashion, other users will be much more willing to assume good faith on your part.---CH 02:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My livelihood depends 0% on existance/nonexistance of Bios theory article. Lakinekaki 22:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake in a statement above. My livelihood does depend on this article. I was writting it in my free time, and invested a lot of time and energy discussing with few people here its validity, and therefore didn't invest that time in doing projects that I have, and therefore have 'lost' (didn't earn) money. In conclusion, this article reflected negatively on my livelihood. You may ask me now: Why did you do it then? I did it because I come from the totalitarian country (Yugoslavia/Serbia) where much information was not available to people, or it was available in the form of misinformation. People were deceived thru television, newspapers, etc. I then came to US, and saw similar things happening on US television and newspaper, although less and in a different form. This is the reason why I use internet as a source for information - it gives access to any country, publisher, or language, and tools like altavista babelfish translate enable me to read directly languages that I don't even know. Then I discovered Wikipedia, and was fascinated by it - an organized system of knowledge that allows everyone to contribute with his/hers knowledge. Then I discovered guardians of knowledge (information) on wikipedia. People who put themselves above 'common' people, and find their 'duty' to 'protect' other 'common readers' from the information they (guardians) dont like, or find contradictory/confusing and think 'common readers' would not be able to see and judge themselves. You made me laught when I read you paranoya about using Bios data analyzer (BDA) in prenatal intensive care. Like those people could not judge themselves the usefulness of bios theory and its (or BDA) application, and you have to 'protect' them from this information. (just a note for you - Bios data analyzer is totaly useless in that regard - at least I don't know how it could be used for that. Its purpose is only qualitative distinction between different types of processes and time series, and cannot be used for any real-time purposes). Lakinekaki 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions to Bios theory

You have contributed to an article, Bios theory, which I am concerned misrepresents a highly dubious "theory" as being validated by dynamical systems theory/chaos theory, which I have challenged in the talk page. Even worse, it seems that in real life you are Kazar Kovacevic of Chicago, who is listed on this page as a research associate at Chicago Center for Creative Development, from which you (User:Lakinekaki) apparently grabbed images which you uploaded to wikimedia.org to illustrated Bios theory. I note that a [creativebios.com/bios/Chapter12-TheInfiniteAttractorofEvolution.pdf file] grabbed almost at random from the Chicago Center for Creative Development (CCCD) website claims This provides a mathematical metaphor for God compatible with contemporary science, which would not appear to be a claim which very many scientists would consider to constitute legitimate science, much less mainstream science.

Please see WP:VAIN, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY for some indication of the nature of my concern about a possible conflict of interest.---CH 04:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you also clarify the nature of the alleged applications of "bios theory" at (yes?) Rush University Medical Center which are mentioned in the article? TIA---CH 09:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I read these policies before, that is all but the first one. WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY have not been violated, while now I read in the WP:VAIN that: any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.

Although I am associate of the author of the theory, I totally don't care about promoting him on the internet. I have better things to do in my life. What I care about are ideas, and I think that theory of bios has few good ideas. They have been published in different journals, and I think that the article satisfies all tree WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY policies. Note also that I put only 1 paper where I am mentioned that I thought was relevant for the verifiability of the article.

WP:VAIN also sais... Articles on very little-known subjects are often of debatable value for our readers, so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent...As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is (whether or not defined by the proposed Wikipedia:Importance). I did cite the credible sources.

Evolution is creative and ongoing. Creative evolution has already created consciousness and conscience; humans have a spirit. Biotic development illustrates how evolution may be expected to continue creating an attractor of infinite complexity rather than tending to equilibrium. This provides a mathematical metaphor for God compatible with contemporary science and with mental health principles. Since he is a psychiatrist, I am an engineer, and you are a mathematician, I guess that he knows better than two of us what are scientific principles of mental health.

I will go now to bios theory talk page to reply to your critique. Lakinekaki 11:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Chaos theory talk

Dear Lakinekaki, you are correct in pointing out that I have worked in dynamical systems. It took years for me to develop even a passing understanding of the field, to know some of its literature, and to talk to enough people about it. What I find hardest to accomplish in the Wikipedia is creating balance within articles. Much gets communicated to the reader by what is excluded as by what is included. Achieving balance requires cooperation between authors that are familiar with different, but overlapping parts, of the literature. There are many prominent topics in the area of chaos that are not yet mentioned in the article: phase space reconstruction, the role of the stable and unstable manifolds, control of chaos, phase synchronization, experimental results, to name a few. I fell, from the citations of the field, that Bios Theory is not yet in that category.

I find it difficult to write about science without the use of a technical language. But, just because there are no formulas in some articles it does not mean that they are not precise. From what I have seen, linas and Gandalf61 can produce the technical language related to their contributions on demand.

On the citations, the Web of Science is the interface that Thompson offers, the Science Citation Index is the database that I was using and meant to cite (messed up the write up, sorry for the confusion). The Journal of Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences is not abstracted in the Science Citation Index. Cybernetics and Systems and Kybernetes are. Cybernetics and Systems has a reasonable impact factor, Kybernetes does not. That does not change the result that searching the Science Citation Index and INSPEC shows that the Bios topic had not been picked up. And that is after at least six years after some of the papers by Sabelli and Kauffman. The search was a challenge for you to provide a wider and better cited literature. XaosBits 05:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

(Not a general discussion, so I moved it. XaosBits 05:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

I don't have access to ISI and cannot do the search for references. By doing simple search on google, I found some papers (where Sabelli was not co-author) that quote Sabelli. One of them is:

• Mario E. Martinez, The Process of Knowing: A Biocognitive Epistemology, The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Autumn 2001, Volume 22, Number 4, Pages 407-426

I saw (from Kauffman - Sabelli paper) that (creative) bios was first defined within the 'process theory'. For the sake of curiosity, you can do that search and tell me what you find. Lakinekaki 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Moja web stranica

Odgovorih ti na mojoj "Talk stranici"... Pozdrav! --Aleksandar Šušnjar 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiliam conoley

This is response to Williams comment from here

I think you'll find that Chaos is well defined, but you neither know nor understand the definition.

Maybe you know how to spell, but seems not how to read. most experts would concur that chaos is ... and yet the chaos theory article gives other definitions. those are nice definitions, but who agrees about them? If people don't agree about them, how is it well defined? Compare that with other definitions, like the one about gravity.

Don't you get bored typing all those colons and long for a fresh start sometimes?

'::::::' is far shorter and less borring than your sentence above

Asymmetry: well done, you spelt it right 1 out of 2, thats progress.

unfortunately you are making none. don't expect me to pay you fee for this spelling lessons.

But you still don't know what it means.

I do, but I don't want to put my oppinions on wikipedia articles, just what I find in sources.

Defining what it means in this context would *not* be original research - unless you do what you appear to propose, ie, make the definition up out of your own head.

to me it's obvious. if you need one, feel free to add.

What you need to do is understand what your sources mean by it. And you should do that *before* you write about it.

I don't need to understand it, although it helps. However, I do understand it (i.e. Gaussian distribution is symmetric, Pareto is asymmetric), but you *want* *definition*.

I become more and more convinc3ed that you haven't got a clue what any of this is about, but you just like the words for some reason. Wiki is vast: why not write articles about things you *do* understand? William M. Connolley 19:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am doing that. Don't project your lack of understanding to others.

I am worried about the future of the earth because you are into global climate research, and among other things i find bothering about you, you have so much free time to write these things. Are you writting them from your work (while the earth keeps warming up)? Lakinekaki 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadar

Mozes li pogledati sledece glasanje o clanku 'Kristalna noc u Zadru' [1]. Clanak ce biti obrisan u protivnom, kao sto se uklanjaju i ostala svedocanstva o stradanju Srba - uprkos svim dokazima i linkovima. Hvala.

Nemanyya 05:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Belgrade

You may wish to vote for Belgrade at the Article Improvement Drive page, here. --estavisti 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Јесте добро и опширно, до неке мере, ал' није "featured article standard". Има још доста да се уради, око историје например, па да имамо баш одличан чланак. --estavisti 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello! I invite you to join the WikiProject Serbia. All the best, --serbiana - talk 02:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Since there is a dispute, please vote on it in the AID talkpage. --Steven 22:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Belgrade is the Current AID Article

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

Re: My user sub page

Cool, I thought it might be something like that. It's usually the case that a recreated deletion will be protected, so that's what I did. Thanks for the note, and happy editing! :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help on Ancient Egypt

Posted by Pruneau 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

Fidelio Magazine may be deleted

A tag has been placed on Fidelio Magazine, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We've held off on merging the article so that you could improve it. But ten days later there've been no further edits. Do you still intend to work on that article? -Will Beback · † · 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I will as I find additional useful information. Lakinekaki 02:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Unless there's a major change in the next few days we'll go ahead and merge it, but you can still add sources and additional information as you find them. -Will Beback · † · 05:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

Hi, I just saw you added "This article or section does not cite its references or sources" to the List of conspiracy theories, and I thought "Of course not, if there was any evidence they wouldn't be conspiracy theories!" No need to reply, I just thought it was funny. Tocharianne 04:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to claim in encyclopedia that something is conspiracy theory, one needs a reference that someone really said so, because authors of those theories probably don't consider them only theories, but also possible truths based on certain facts. 71.194.88.32 19:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

You're quite right that I misspoke when I referred to the statement of opinion that you want to add to the introduction of this article as "extreme." It's not really extreme, given the extreme subject of the debate. The problem with the edit is that it's a statement favoring one side of a debate, and placing it in the introduction is a way of strongly favoring that side of the debate. Under the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, an article isn't allowed to favor one side of a debate unless a clear majority of scholars in the field do so, as in "most biologists accept evolution." In some cases, it's difficult to establish where the "majority of opinion" is. The guideline that WP gives is "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." If you can find some commonly accepted reference that states that the majority of scholars or the majority of the world's people feel such-and-such a way about the morality of the bombings, I would be more than happy to see such a thing added to the article in a prominent place. Barring that, apart from the description of the debate in paragraph 3 of the introduction, statements of opinion belong in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Debate over bombings section. KarlBunker 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Morgellons

Hi. Your recent edit of Morgellons included two actions that were, unfortunately, reverted; one was a violation of the NPOV provisions, the other was not attributable; the link you gave is NOT a citation that classifies Morgellons as a disease - it is a database of disease names that happens to include Morgellons (thus, it is not an attribution). That is a very important distinction. Second, giving the citation from Savely and Leitao is inappropriate UNLESS you state that they are part of the Morgellons Research Foundation, and NOT independent researchers. Since they are the only people in the world promoting this condition as a genuine disease, and since they are making money in the process, this is a conflict of interest; accordingly, nothing they publish should be taken at face value (thus, it is not NPOV). Sincerely, Dyanega 16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting comment. My actions were indeed unfortunately reverted.

As far as 'non-attributable' argument of yours, how is this not attributable? The Office of Rare Diseases (ORD) was established in 1993 within the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).[2] They say that it is a rare disease. Excuse me, but I will trust them more than you. BTW. they don't specify if it is a skin or psychiatric disorder.

Second, I gave a citation that I found on the net, and only one of authors is affiliated to MRF, so the paper sias.

This work was supported in part by the Morgellons Research Foundation

(McMurray, PA, USA) and the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS; Bethesda, MD, USA).

So, in your own words, it is inappropriate to state that they are part of MRF, because there are other institutions involved. Last, although MRF did sponsor this research, and I can tell that you dislike this organization for some reason, their research was published in a reputable third party 'independent' source, and therefore is appropriate for citation, (without a need to mention sponsors - although that does not hurt). They did not publish it, but American Journal of Clinical Dermatology did.

I just stumbled upon this topic in Psychology Today and found it interesting, and found Wiki page very biased.

Lakinekaki 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC for WP:FRINGE

Lakinekaki... Per our discussions on the talk page at WP:FRINGE, I have posted the following at various pages at the Village Pump...

• The status of the WP:FRINGE guideline has been questioned. It has been suggested that an RFC/straw poll could help determine if the guideline has community consensus or not. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#RFC - Does this guideline have consensus?.

Hopefully this will give us an idea of how the community feels about the guideline. My guess is that there will be general support, but also suggestion on how to revise the language. We shall see. Blueboar 12:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Lakinekaki 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Dozenist and User:Jersyko

I just looked over the Fluordation-related articles. These two editors seem to have dominated the editing on these articles with their own POV. Anything you can tell about your experiences with them?--Fahrenheit451 21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't really remember, it was a while ago. However, I did put on talk page there about 50 references [3], so feel free to use them to improve the article. Lakinekaki 13:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Intermittency proposed for deletion

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Intermittency, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. EyeSerene^TALK 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Intermittency

I have nominated Intermittency, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intermittency. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Avruch^Talk 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hormonal meat

I have nominated Hormonal meat, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hormonal meat. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Avruch^Talk 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ћирилица

Uh ... izvinjavam se što se nisam ranije javio ... tek videh ovo. Ja, ustvari, nemam veze sa razvojem samog sr.wikipedia.org softvera. Samo sam diskutovao sa ljudima koji su to na kraju radili i napisao Serbian Wikipedia's Challenges.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AIDS

Please read the subst. template at the top of the External links section closely. It states quite clearly what action you can do if you wish to add links. The language was outdated, and a newer version has since been added:

<!--===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================
    | PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS   |
    | NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS.                                              |
    |                                                                         | 
    |               Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED.         |
    |  See [[Wikipedia:External links]] and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details.   |
    |                                                                         | 
    | If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or       |
    | replacements on this article's discussion page.  Or submit your link    |
    | to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org)|
    | and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template.             |
    ===========================({{NoMoreLinks}})===============================-->

Thank you. --Bob (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Angelic Organics

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Angelic Organics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Angelic Organics. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Self-described"

You asked for another disorder whose symptoms are characterized as being self-described. There are lots of them. Read the article on Hypochondriasis. Then read the one on Delusional parasitosis. In fact, there are some 23 articles linked in the Delusion article, many of which are disorders characterized by self-described symptoms. Dyanega (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Before telling me to read them, it would be nice if you read them first. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I did - I even helped write some of them. Here's just one example: "Hypochondria is often characterized by fears that minor bodily symptoms may indicate a serious illness, constant self-examination and self-diagnosis". Now, please stop revert warring; one more and you'll be in violation of WP:3RR. Dyanega (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am glad you admitted that YOU WROTE 'self diagnosis' parts in all these articles. That only weakens your argument. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how you want to make this encyclopedia, that encourages bold editing, closed for my editing by citing some consensus that I didn't see exists, and certainly does not include me, nor many other editors. Lakinekaki (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how you assumed that I had anything to do with those portions of the text; my comment was simply to indicate that I had read those articles, not that the content that you don't personally agree with was something I placed there. I assure you, if you looked at the article histories, you would see what I have (and have not) contributed. There is no "argument" - you plainly haven't read those articles, nor have a clue what I or anyone else has written there, and you seriously need to become familiar with the WP:NPOV policy, because you've clearly allowed your personal opinions to directly shape your edits, and your responses to other editors. Dyanega (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't express yourself well. You wrote this: I even helped write some of them. Here's just one example: "Hypochondria is often characterized by fears that minor bodily symptoms may indicate a serious illness, constant self-examination and self-diagnosis".

I thought that was an example of what you wrote. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Lakinekaki. Doctors today have to rely on patient-described symptoms in making many of their diagnoses when physical evidence is not apparent to the doctor. Googling "patient-reported symptoms" or "self-reported symptoms" gets a good idea of how important this concept is to modern medicine. RetroS1mone talk 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is fine when we talk about itching, but not when we talk about fibers in the skin. That is why I put fibers at begging of the symptoms, as it makes it clearer that self-description refers to other symptoms. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, repeatedly in the past, no one who is not affiliated with the MRF has ever seen nor extracted fibers from beneath the unbroken skin of a Morgellons sufferer. It is normal for a scab to contain fibers, and all such that have been examined by anyone outside the MRF have been textiles or hairs. Therefore, to date, we only have the verbal reports that there are fibers beneath the skin of these people. That symptom is also self-described, and also has yet to be confirmed. PLEASE base your edits upon verifiable sources, rather than your personal opinions. Dyanega (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am basing my edits on my personal opinion of what is a verifiable resource. We all do that. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Verifiable" means exactly that - and no one outside the MRF has been able to verify these claims, after more than 5 years trying. No, pretending that something unverifiable IS verifiable is NOT something we all do. One can only assume good faith up to the point where willful disregard of the facts becomes evident. Dyanega (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You describing yourself? Lakinekaki (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring and for publically admitting to edit warring here. If you wish to contest this block please use the {{unblock}} template. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked you for edit warring and for admitting to gaming the system. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• And how exactly am I gaming the system? System allows for 3 edits within 24 hours. Or maybe it does not? Show me the WP that sais the opposite.
• How can you block me without appropriate warning that 'system should not be gamed' or whatever you are saying?
• I was not 'admitting to gaming the system' but that I was going to be a very bold editor, just like other editors involved in that article.

Lakinekaki (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Er, doesn't it seem like a warning would have been better in this case? You basically blocked someone for stating an intention to violate a policy, I haven't seen that happen before. You say "for edit warring and for publicly admitting to edit warring" - where is the former? Which article? Was it ongoing? Can you reconsider this block? I don't know too much about Lakinekaki's history, but this just seems inappropriate on its face. Avruch^T * ^ER 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Today is the day of bad blocks. Please immediately unblock this editor. Bstone (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Lakinekaki, I'm not supporting your comment or your intention. Edit warring is disruptive, and counter to the collaborative editing process that we require on Wikipedia. Edit warring up to the 3RR rule is not acceptable - 3RR doesn't allow you to revert that many times in a day, it prohibits you from reverting more and also advises that edit warring that doesn't pass 3RR is still blockable. I would advise you that even if you are unblocked, if you pursue your strategy then you will in fact be blocked. Most likely with increasingly long time periods. But I don't think you should be blocked in advance of a possible policy violation. Avruch^T * ^ER 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I just wanted to let know those 2 other editors I would be persistent over time about the particular edit. Not necessarily 3 times a day, but certainly a few times in a week. I wanted to let them know this, as it seems to me that they are using their slight outnumbering of me (there are 2 or 3 of them) to persist in their edit reverts. Lakinekaki (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that you are unblocked I'd advise you to be careful that you don't cross the line into edit warring. You can seek outside opinions through editors you know might be interested in the subject, or via WP:3O. You can look for a number of opinions using an RfC, or pursue other avenues of dispute resolution that don't include violating the spirit of the edit warring policies. Avruch^T * ^ER 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for support and feedback. I am WP editor for few years now, and I do try to be careful and considerate. However, what pushes me over the line are users who use polite language and pretend to be nice, but actually with their actions show total disrespect. Lakinekaki (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am still blocked. He just removed a template from this page, so i am placing unblock template again. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not actually blocked (take a look at your block log). Autoblock? Avruch^T * ^ER 01:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

But I cannot edit other pages?!? Lakinekaki (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like an autoblock. In the unblock template, the bottom part, there are instructions for dealing with an autoblock - its a different template, with parameters that are set based on your IP, so you need to follow those instructions. Avruch^T * ^ER 01:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory

User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory citations

User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory citations, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory citations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory citations during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Solar cycle. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Solar cycle. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)