Talk:11:11/Archive 1

message: Removed the biased description and other sources, which also show bias.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs) .
I refer you to Wikipedia's guidelines on original research and Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability.  Perhaps we can also bring this in front of Wikipedia's arbitration committee?  TheRingess 01:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Deletions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Articles for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1111tv Forum 

message: 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.
TheRingess 05:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Preference 

message: You'll have to pardon my lack of Wikipedia knowledge. This entire interface is rather cluncky when navigating and posting.
That new link is going to the same place as the other forum link and was added by another user. The new one should be removed. 
This subject matter will most likely never be proved just as one cannot prove the existence of Satan, God, or Ghosts, Near Death Experiences etc... 
Do people want to give up their real names and be quoted? Maybe and maybe not, if they did it would be deleted anyhow because some are just everyday people not famous writers, mathematicians, scientists and so forth. As you can see when the number is googled you will find thousands of hits from people in various forums whom say the exact same thing. They are all amazed there are web pages that deal in the subject matter because they thought they were the only ones whom noticed the 1111 thing. 
It's nice that Wikipedia has this article so others can read up on it even if it is rather short and brief. As yet it's unexplainable. If you don't experience it then again why would someone who knows nothing about say surgery edit a wik page on surgery procedures or edit the Battle of Waterloo when you don't know the history of the event. Thats the point I'm making—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NumberMan (talk • contribs) .
Please read some more about Wikipedia.
This is not about proving the subject matter.
Please read wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources.
Quotes can only be included in an article if they have already been published in a reputable, credible source. 
Please also read up on Wikipedia's guidelines to original research.
Remember, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, you do not have to be an expert on the material covered in an article, to edit the article. 
TheRingess 16:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Preference II 

message: Why are the thoughts and theories of thousands second to that of a couple of people who are basically making it up as they go?
"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."
(Just so you know, this non notable forum is the busiest and most popular 1111 site running.)
That's all fine and dandy, but why are Solara and The 1111 Spirit Guardians listed? Everything about 11:11 is pov, since nobody knows what it means. 1111TV did not come here to drum up traffic, but to offer an alternative. Why can Solara and 1111SG link to their forums, especially since both have profited? 1111TV is non-profit. I have added another version, but I find your view of what is pov and what isn't, to be very skewed. I will take your action (I see you're into numbers) to be an indicator that 1111tv might just be on to something right. If you allow charismatics to define what really isn't (yet) and block the real voices of ALL who see it, then you should really take a look at why. 
I'd rather see it removed altogether than to allow such arbitrary decisions, especially when they don't seem to make sense.
You have to understand that this is truly undefined beyond it being a phenomenon of people that 'see' it. This is not something easy to pin down and Wikipedia might want to keep the subject in mind when applying it's rules.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuslawyer (talk • contribs) .
No it does not.  Please read wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources.  This will help you understand more about Wikipedia.
Remember, truth alone is not sufficient to guarantee inclusion of material, the material must come from reliable, verifiable sources.
This page: WP:OR will help you understand why Wikipedia does not want original research.
TheRingess 05:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Wikipedia Stifle Free Thought/Speech?

message: Basically, I removed the Groups section.  I have several reasons for this and am listing them below.  Remember for editors new to Wikipedia, I am not a moderator, simply a fellow editor.  If you disagree with my edits, you can always revert them.  It's considered polite to explain your reversions (as I am doing here).  Here are my reasons.
#Any group that is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article, is probably notable enough to warrant an article of their own.  They probably deserve more than a sentence or 2 that summarizes their beliefs.  Also any article about the group would probably link here anyway.  Since notable groups need more than a sentence or two, including them here and nowhere else could mean that this article becomes huge, in which case, we would probably split it up anyway by creating new articles.  If a group is not notable enough to warrant an article of their own, then they are probably not notable enough to warrant inclusion here.
#Nor should we include theories about something that itself is a theory.  Since there seems to be no reliable sources for some of the previous material included in this article, any theory included here would most likely count as original research.  So according to Wikipedia's policies, does not belong.  One example of what might be acceptable, would be research that is published in a reputable journal, that perhaps attempts to show how widespread this belief is and/or where and when it originated.
#I am leaving in the links to the books, for anyone wishing to explore the belief further.  I am also leaving in the links to the websites.  Remember, this does not constitute an endorsement of the material presented in the books or on the websites.  They are included only because they relate to the belief in the synchronicity of the numbers.
P.S.  please remember to "sign" comments on this talk page and others with ~~~~
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRingess (talk • contribs) 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I'm the editor who originally recreated this article. Just want to say brilliant job on cleaning up and maintaining the article - there appears to be a lot more 11:11 fanatics out there then I thought, all bent on adding their own ideas to the article. I gave up on this article within a few days of creating it, so you have my admiration for keeping everything NPOV. Good luck. -ryan-d 16:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Rewrites 

message: Wikipedia is not a link farm.  After considerable thought I've removed the external links section. 
#None of the links provide any further socialogical information about the belief.  Are there any links that have done any research as to how widespread the belief is?  Or where it originated?
#None of the original links were to groups that have articles on Wikipedia.  If a group has an article then it could have a link on this page.
#Some of the links were links to what original research.
It seems that the link section in this article exists only to promote original research and non notable groups.
TheRingess 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  
Original Research!
 Disambig Page! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Current Discussion

message: Why has the entry about a Mudvayne album (00:47, 17 May 2008 64.140.212.14) been left in when it doesn't mention 11:11 and there seems to have been a considerable edit war since?
--86.0.169.202 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mudvayne - irrelevant? 

message: Is there a reason why this page does not link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11:11_%28numerology%29
Because that would seem to resolve the issue of those of us who feel that 11:11 and other numbers, a rather large number of them, are seen by us far beyond statistical chance. And yes we know about confirmation bias. As I am brand new to this wiki editing business, please be kind. Geoff C8 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, at the very top of the page.  Welcome to Wikipedia.TheRingess (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  11:11 numerology