User talk:Cosmikos

Welcome!

Hello, Cosmikos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Cymatic Theology, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WWGB (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Cymatic Theology

I have nominated Cymatic Theology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymatic Theology. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WWGB (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Cymatic Theology. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Cymatic Theology has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9GBf8y0lY0 (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cymatic Theology

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cymatic Theology, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd=Wikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FCymatic+Theology.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cymatic Theology

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cymatic Theology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Timneu22 · talk 14:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been moved User:Cosmikos/Cymatic Theology. Since you say it's not ready yet, work on it there, in your userspace, and then get suggestions from other users before posting. — Timneu22 · talk 14:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cymatic Theology for deletion, Conflict of interest

The article Cymatic Theology is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymatic Theology (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my concerns about this article at the AfD page, which is, of course, linked above. In the course of evaluating, I noticed that you assert that you are closely related to the originator of this term. There may be a conflict in your editing articles relates to Dr. Pretorius or his research. Please read through our conflict of interest guidelines to be sure that your work on Wikipedia complies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Pretorius is a well established researcher in many areas of science and theology. I am not sure why you are concerned? It has also met the necessary criteria that was a concern with the previous evaluators. As to the relationship, I am also not sure why this would be a problem? We work in several fields of research, as do others. The idea is that this field is becoming extremely well received, and there is currently a website being built by a number of contributors on this.

I further encourage you to look at the links regarding his work. He is well established as a lecturer, and a prolific writer. I am not sure what more can be done?

Cosmikos (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unsure why your relationship may be a problem, please review Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, and especially the section on "Close relationships". In terms of the article, I have explained my issues at the "articles for deletion" discussion. Wikipedia is not intended to publish original research. We exist to summarize what reliable sources have previously said about notable subjects. If these sources do not yet exist, then the article should not be on Wikipedia at this time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice.

Your concern is that this may be original research, therefore not suitable for a wiki page. The page does not refer to any work being original. What the page does infer is that Pretorius has used the term Cymatic Theology to explain what is regarded as revised research, to include aspects of God using sound to create, just as the Hindus refer to OM (see wiki) as the creative sound God used. The following references definitely show that this is not original research, but slightly revised, to include subsequent information. The following articles are just a few examples of the research in this area (there are dozens). It includes two good pages on sound and creation from wiki pages. http://www.5thray.com/tunes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om http://convozine.com/conversations/6023 http://www.ratemyink.com/?action=ssp&pid=103589 Extensive work has been done on this by John Stuart Reid and the Cymascope http://cymascope.com/cyma_research/history.html Dr Pretorius is in constant contact with John on this, and he has recently reviewed one of Pretorius’s articles on this.

Thanks, Cosmikos (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, original research in the Wikipedia refers to the method you employed to obtain the content for your article. If for example I stated that that 2,000 cars per hour drive across Westminster Bridge, and I know because I stood there and counted them, that would be original research. Perhaps you can also leave the personal asides out of your comments - they are not appropriate in a deletion debate, they are not appreciated by the regular Wikipedia community, and they will probably not advance your cause. Kudpung (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]