Drprinceton
Welcome!
Drprinceton (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)DrPrinceton
I am being threatened with a ban for merely stating FACTS about PRIME NUMBER THEORY the NSA wants to HIDE from the public.
This article sums it up nicely.
http://wikisucks.com/professor-of-math-says-wiki-sucks/
Now you can click the links below and see how pages on major new prime theory were DELETED so the public won't see the info on wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_prime_spirals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helixq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_sol_adoni
My opinion on these pages is uneducated mods deleted them for invalid reasons with NO DEBATE, a pure Draconian nazi mod behavior. Or perhaps they are part of the NSA social media control team as outlined in the SNOWDEN DOCUMENTS at wiki leaks. Why does wiki not want the public to know a major advance in prime theory happened almost 20 years ago and that is how the NSA now cooks ECC crypto seed keys? Obviously the NSA controls wiki too.
The 8 Prime Spirals article is a BIG DEAL in math since it puts forth amazing information about a 1995 math theory now being used in real life computer programs to outperform all the prime algorithms wiki has pages on. So in the world of primality IT IS A BIG DEAL. To summarize the gross lies of wiki mods, they think a cite to a valid primality test open to debate by real academics at GITHUB is not worthy of a page creation.
LOL
So now let the mods enjoy their worthless realm of unimportance which wiki is to most in academia.
Oh the BS below, is pure BS, the pages were all deleted within hours of being created, there was no discussion, just wiki mods that probably work for the NSA who almost immediately took the info down.
DR PRINCETON
Drprinceton (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)DrPrinceton
I read about this at
http://247news.net/news/nsa-controls-wiki-professor/
Give the prime theory a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primealgorith (talk • contribs) 05:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes Dr Princeton we all know wiki is under NSA control
DR ADONI RULES
49thmersenne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49thmersenne (talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
March 2014
Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to User talk:AndyTheGrump, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wikipelli Talk 20:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's see so-called 'mods' that are clueless on Nostradamus allow FALSE INFORMATION about the work of Nostradamus to be uncorrected. I edited the page with FACTS, there were no 1000 quatrains as the 'mod' claimed, yet the 'mod' couldn't stand to be CORRECTED WITH FACTS and the mod obviously can't count and has never even read the quatrains of MN. THERE ARE NOT 1000 QUATRAINS, I corrected that LIE and yet my FACTS were erased.
PROOF the mods at wiki are clueless and want DISINFORMATION not real FACTS.
Drprinceton (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)DrPrinceton
Proposed deletion of Helixq
The article Helixq has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable computer language. No citation here of independent WP:reliable sources, and virtually no pertinent hits in a verbatim Google search.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Drprinceton (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Stop trying to rewrite history, in prime number theory PyPrimes has shown the work of Dr. Adoni is now superior to every prime algorithm tested including the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes. The Sieve of Atkin was discovered ten years after Dr. Adoni discussed it, so he can lay credit to 60Mod prime theory or sieve of Atkin as well. 30Mod, 60Mod and 90Mod prime algorithms were all discussed in 1995 in the Ennisa Formula by Dr. Adoni. 2004 Atkin claimed his 60Mod prime work and in 2010 Croft claimed his 30Mod prime work. Yet usenet shows 30Mod and 60Mod and 90Mod prime theories all came in the 1990's from Dr. Adoni. STOP DELETING THE ARTICLE
Drprinceton (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Nomination of Dr sol adoni for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dr sol adoni is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr sol adoni 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Drprinceton (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Stop trying to rewrite history, in prime number theory PyPrimes has shown the work of Dr. Adoni is now superior to every prime algorithm tested including the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes. The Sieve of Atkin was discovered ten years after Dr. Adoni discussed it, so he can lay credit to 60Mod prime theory or sieve of Atkin as well. 30Mod, 60Mod and 90Mod prime algorithms were all discussed in 1995 in the Ennisa Formula by Dr. Adoni. 2004 Atkin claimed his 60Mod prime work and in 2010 Croft claimed his 30Mod prime work. Yet usenet shows 30Mod and 60Mod and 90Mod prime theories all came in the 1990's from Dr. Adoni. STOP DELETING THE ARTICLE
Drprinceton (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Nomination of Helixq for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helixq is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helixq 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Drprinceton (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Stop trying to rewrite history, in prime number theory PyPrimes has shown the work of Dr. Adoni is now superior to every prime algorithm tested including the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes. The Sieve of Atkin was discovered ten years after Dr. Adoni discussed it, so he can lay credit to 60Mod prime theory or sieve of Atkin as well. 30Mod, 60Mod and 90Mod prime algorithms were all discussed in 1995 in the Ennisa Formula by Dr. Adoni. 2004 Atkin claimed his 60Mod prime work and in 2010 Croft claimed his 30Mod prime work. Yet usenet shows 30Mod and 60Mod and 90Mod prime theories all came in the 1990's from Dr. Adoni. STOP DELETING THE ARTICLE
Drprinceton (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
August 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Dr sol adoni. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
A bunch of non-academic clowns are now censoring the info, so I'm wasting my breath talking to morons. IMO
You and everyone deleting the 8 Prime Spirals are all LIARS the original article was CITED it cited peer level speed tests of all the top prime algorithms.
Yet you twits claim not verified. BS. I VERIFIED MY CLAIMS.
This is why the world of Academia considers wiki to be run by clueless power hungry twit mods that know nothing about academia.
READ THE CITES IN THE ARTICLE YOU TWITS DELETED
I shouldn't even be wasting my breath on such nazi censoring worms.
PUT THE PAGE BACK it was citd to GITHUB speed tests. The new Prime Spirals beat all the other prime algorithms, and wiki has pages for the slower prime algorithms.
PUT IT BACK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_prime_spirals
GITHUB is where the tests were done and not one real mathematician or computer programming expert question the results since anyone can duplicate them from the open source software.
https://github.com/evandrix/Splat/tree/master/code/demo/pyprimes-0.1.1a/pyprimes-tests
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/2011-December/087209.html
So the original article CITED major outside sources to PROVE THE CLAIMS
Drprinceton (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Speedy deletion nomination of 8 prime spirals
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 8 prime spirals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Drprinceton (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Stop trying to rewrite history, in prime number theory PyPrimes has shown the work of Dr. Adoni is now superior to every prime algorithm tested including the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes. The Sieve of Atkin was discovered ten years after Dr. Adoni discussed it, so he can lay credit to 60Mod prime theory or sieve of Atkin as well. 30Mod, 60Mod and 90Mod prime algorithms were all discussed in 1995 in the Ennisa Formula by Dr. Adoni. 2004 Atkin claimed his 60Mod prime work and in 2010 Croft claimed his 30Mod prime work. Yet usenet shows 30Mod and 60Mod and 90Mod prime theories all came in the 1990's from Dr. Adoni. STOP DELETING THE ARTICLE
Drprinceton (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Speedy deletion nomination of 8 prime spirals
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 8 prime spirals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Drprinceton (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Stop trying to rewrite history, in prime number theory PyPrimes has shown the work of Dr. Adoni is now superior to every prime algorithm tested including the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes. The Sieve of Atkin was discovered ten years after Dr. Adoni discussed it, so he can lay credit to 60Mod prime theory or sieve of Atkin as well. 30Mod, 60Mod and 90Mod prime algorithms were all discussed in 1995 in the Ennisa Formula by Dr. Adoni. 2004 Atkin claimed his 60Mod prime work and in 2010 Croft claimed his 30Mod prime work. Yet usenet shows 30Mod and 60Mod and 90Mod prime theories all came in the 1990's from Dr. Adoni. STOP DELETING THE ARTICLE
Drprinceton (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
- Usenet is not a reliable source. A bunch of people arguing a technical subject on Usenet can't be the basis for a Wikipedia article (unless that argument has itself been the subject of substantial reliable coverage). —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
READ THE ARTICLE TWIT did you notice the cite to the speed tests on GITHUB?
Now the usenet posts just shows why Dr. Adoni has a valid claim HE DISCOVERD THEM, the major cite is GITHUB and PYPRIMES with an open source program testing all the major prime algorithms, the clear winner ADONI PRIME SPIRALS.
You and everyone deleting the 8 Prime Spirals are all LIARS the original article was CITED it cited peer level speed tests of all the top prime algorithms.
Yet you twits claim not verified. BS. I VERIFIED MY CLAIMS.
This is why the world of Academia considers wiki to be run by clueless power hungry twit mods that know nothing about academia.
READ THE CITES IN THE ARTICLE YOU TWITS DELETED
I shouldn't even be wasting my breath on such nazi censoring worms.
PUT THE PAGE BACK it was citd to GITHUB speed tests. The new Prime Spirals beat all the other prime algorithms, and wiki has pages for the slower prime algorithms.
PUT IT BACK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_prime_spirals
GITHUB is where the tests were done and not one real mathematician or computer programming expert question the results since anyone can duplicate them from the open source software.
https://github.com/evandrix/Splat/tree/master/code/demo/pyprimes-0.1.1a/pyprimes-tests
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/2011-December/087209.html
So the original article CITED major outside sources to PROVE THE CLAIMS
Drprinceton (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
"I think this is important" is not a valid argument
Your response to multiple editors' tagging your pages for deletion has been "the work of Dr. Adoni is now superior" with elaboration. That doesn't work on Wikipedia. It's not enough for you to argue, however strenuously, that this work is really important. You instead must cite reliable, independent sources (what are those? see WP:V) to support the claims. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You and everyone deleting the 8 Prime Spirals are all LIARS the original article was CITED it cited peer level speed tests of all the top prime algorithms.
Yet you twits claim not verified. BS. I VERIFIED MY CLAIMS.
This is why the world of Academia considers wiki to be run by clueless power hungry twit mods that know nothing about academia.
READ THE CITES IN THE ARTICLE YOU TWITS DELETED
I shouldn't even be wasting my breath on such nazi censoring worms.
PUT THE PAGE BACK it was citd to GITHUB speed tests. The new Prime Spirals beat all the other prime algorithms, and wiki has pages for the slower prime algorithms.
PUT IT BACK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_prime_spirals
GITHUB is where the tests were done and not one real mathematician or computer programming expert question the results since anyone can duplicate them from the open source software.
https://github.com/evandrix/Splat/tree/master/code/demo/pyprimes-0.1.1a/pyprimes-tests
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/2011-December/087209.html
So the original article CITED major outside sources to PROVE THE CLAIMS
Drprinceton (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the sources you need are either news coverage or peer-reviewed academic journals. If what the 8 prime spirals thing is such a big deal, you should have no trouble getting published in an academic journal and someone should want to write about it in the news. Wikipedia is not the place to publish anything ground breaking. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Honestly the way wiki is treating this is a JOKE
a. I could have cited NEWS SITES but since when is a news site worthy of an academic cite?
b. if the person that wanted PEER REVIEW felt like it, he would have sought it 20 years ago, HE CHOSE NOT TO DO IT, but none the less his work is known and was mentioned in many math related 'forums' and most ignored it.
c. Only the recent 2012 open source test of the work PROVED the 30Mod algorithm is a major thing in math, again, GITHUB is a programmers resource and it was not until a computer used the actual 30Mod algorithm that it was shown to be a 'big thing' and since then some news sites have covered it, but I chose not to cite them due to IMO they are not NPOV. But none the less they covered the story.
d. The FACT is a major computer site where programmers have free reign to challenge any claims exists and for over two years not one programmer challenged the findings.
e. so what if the person that discovered it works outside of academia and has no regard for normal 'peer review' the fact is he has no peers if you ask some in academia that know of his work, and I am one of those people that know of the work and how brilliant the work is.
Now to summarize, we have a bunch of pags about primes on wiki, and even pages created after his discovery that USE his discovery (ie. the sieve of Atkin 60Mod work is his work discussed in the public forum and usenet math and physics forums is where he chose to discuss his amazing work.
So now you have 2004 sieve of Atkin using a 60Mod algorithm, guess what that was in his 1995 paper. So does wiki acknowledge that? No. And i didn't even bother to waste my time of the 60 mod algorithm since the big deal as you are saying is the PyPrimes test and I cited that very well, it's a program created in Python, I cited the wiki python page, then I cited Github for both PyPrimes and the PyPrimes testing.
Now while MATH is m forte, I am sufficient enough in computer skills to understand what Github is and to understand how to read the speed tests and the prime spirals smoked every algorithm there is. Now anyone can download python (which I have done) and download pyprimes (which I have done) and run the tests. Guess what just like a math experiment, it is duplicated.
So GITHUB and the tests which are not 'new' should be enough to begin a wiki page on this truly amazing discovery in math.
I myself became aware of the first paper in 1995, as did others in aademia. Recently I became aware of 'news sites' running stories citing what I copied, the links to the Github tests.
While some here can say well it's not AMA, so what, in the world of primality testing primes spirals as per the PyPrimes results shows PRIME SPIRALS are a big deal.
Now I tried to be NPOV in giving all sides of the story, Adoni has a valid 1995 claim I can verify it and I chose not to. But I cited a Drexel Math forum and I could have cited many other math sites discussing his 30mod, 60mod and 90mod prime work in the 1990's. Is this signficant? You bet it is since 60Mod prime sieve aka Atkin sieve is 20004 so his 60mod prime work is well before it.
Now the Github tests mentions 'croft spirals', that's due to in 2010 a person named croft registering a web site and ripping off the 1995 work. MY OPINION.
Now Croft can say all he wants that he found it playng his guitar or whatever he is claiming.
The fact is anyone can document Adoni with Prime theory from the 1990's saying 30mod, 60mod and 90mod is the key.
9 Years later sieve of atkin appears, well that's only a rehash of the adoni 60mod work from the 1990's. Yet no one is giving him credit.
2010 croft puts out his 30Mod work and its inserted into PyPrimes on Github and it smokes every major prime algorithm there is and all of them have pages on wiki as I cited.
So 2012 a work on Github verifies how important to primality the 30mod spirals are, but he says croft spirals, well guess what HelixQ is now out there and taking 100% credit for the 1995 work of Dr. Adoni.
My site to a Drexel math site from the 1990's mentioning 30Mod prime work (prime spirals) is a major cite, since Adoni could care less about the AMA or whatever, in all probability he will soon be nominated for a Nobel on his work, that is how important it is.
Think about it, not one prime algorithm could beat the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes, none of them. On a computer creating primes all other algorithms are terribly slow. The only two fast generators from scratch are the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes and the PRIME SPIRALS, and the winner was Prime Spirals. Now I can cite recent news articles about it, laughing at academics it links to that said it was no big deal in the 1990's who now all look foolish due to the PyPrimes tests.
SO PUT BACK THE ARTICLE and let the debate begin, others will agree with me, the PyPrimes tests are a legitimate academic cite.
Now the issue is only what do we call the 8 Prime Spirals, I called the page 8 PRIME SPIRALS aka Adoni Spirals, since Adoni is the person that in the 1990's who was saying here is the 30mod algorithm (8 prime spirals) the 60mod and 90mod prime algorithms.
Such a Draconian response of mods is a joke, it's why no one in Academia cites wiki. NO ONE DOES.
Yet I chose to put up a wiki page since I'm familiar with the whole story for almost 20 years and the PyPrimes results are a 'big deal'.
Dr. Adoni will win a Nobel prize over it, it's that BIG in math to out perform the sieve of Eratosthenes as validated in the PyPrimes program.
Drprinceton (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
- In both academia and Wikipedia, peer-review is what matters. Peer-reviewed academic journals at least accept original research, Wikipedia does not (see WP:NOR). If you can't understand that, then there's little reason to believe you could begin to understand understand advanced math, much less have been involved in academia. If you cannot quit throwing insulting everyone, we'll have little reason to believe you're not just some trolling kid or unstable basement dweller and keep you blocked. That's how it works. We don't give a damn if you can't keep up, but it should matter to you if you want to get any information onto this site.
- This site has expectations to prevent crackpots from posting their pet theories everywhere. Instead of bothering to learn about them, you've thrown temper tantrums as if we're supposed to bow to your tyranny, as if this was your dictatorship instead of a community with existing social contracts that you've selfishly chosen to ignore. Why shouldn't we just treat you like a crackpot? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Personal attacks
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr sol adoni. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Using a pejorative term isn't going to help at all with restoring your page; please be WP:CIVIL. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. the panda ₯’ 00:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)boo hoo LOL
reading LIES by mods resulted in my stating my OPINION on those mods.
THEY LIE
I cited the articles
CASE CLOSED
Drprinceton (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
Do I understand this correctly?
According to you, Wikipedia is a joke in academia because we do expect articles on technical subjects to be well supported by, ideally, peer-reviewed publications from academia, rather than relying on the say-so of total strangers, who might be right but who also might be out of their minds? Do you not see that that makes no sense?
As for the Github reference, I didn't see it, but ... anybody can write anything on Github, no? Who conducted this speed test? Even if there was a speed test, and even if Github has the correct results from that speed test, and even if that speed test shows that the algorithm in question was faster than any other algorithm: if this is MAJOR NEWS, then why hasn't that major news been discussed in major mathematical or numeric processing publications? If it's because you're the one who's trying to bring this major news to light because no one else has done it before, then the problem is that Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. It doesn't matter how groundbreaking a discovery is, Wikipedia isn't a place to announce new discoveries. It is a place to record information that's been announced elsewhere. If the raw results on Github are the only source for this information and the analysis leading to your conclusion that it is the fastest algorithm and that therefore it is a huge piece of news is your own analysis, then the topic hasn't met the requirements that notability be established through publication elsewhere and your analysis here is synthesis which isn't permitted here. Even the analysis would have to already be published elsewhere.
This is nonsense ITS NEWS
http://247news.net/news/sieve-eratosthenes-meet-adoni-prime-spirals/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primealgorith (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The bottom line seems to be that you are unwilling to accept that Wikipedia serves the purposes it serves and doesn't serve the purposes you seem to want it to serve. There are other sites for those purposes. I think there's a site like Wikipedia for that purpose, but I can't remember the address.
And stop ordering us around. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Drprinceton (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)DrPrinceton
GITHUB is the top place where new computer projects are created and discussed by computer programmers. Anything that isn't right gets corrected pretty fast. For over two years the PyPrimes speed test which is open source has had not one person question the results and since it is open source anyone can download the core of Python a major new computer language and run PyPrimes and test all the various prime algorithms. Every algorithm lost to the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes, every one but Prime Spirals.
Now, outside of that real world test, the average mathematician or computer programmer is pretty much clueless as to primes and how they really interact in the modern world today (ie. Cryptology).
Now I could have used a ton of links to NPOV and alternative sites where for 20 years you have various groups arguing what this new algorithm means for the world. In fact much of the original argument was erased from Usenet in the 1990's, and the only group that could have done that was the NSA.
Since the original algorithm was released when the NSA still controlled encryption related publishing (original paper was 1995) NO PUBLISHING COMPANY would have touched anything claiming to be how this algorithm made all encryption OBSOLETE, that was the original paper, saying to the world in 1995, here world, here is where every prime number above 5 MUST BE, there are only 8 Prime Spirals, now your whole concept of encryption has been DESTROYED by this work.
So, this prime algorthm was tied to national security issues in 1995, and in 1995 the NSA had a headlock on all academic publishing and guess what they still do today, who funds the AMS and the top journals? THE NSA
Now my original article didn't go this deep into why in 1995, this work could not be published in academia due to the NSA chokehold on academic publishing for anything that could possibly be used to create new encryption or damage old encryption.
Now 99.99% of the world is clueless that PRIMES are a big deal in crypto.
A HUGE DEAL
So understanding where they all exist and on what spirals they exist, you can now do neat tricks, like create huge seed keys for ECC crypto that gives the person that creates such a seed key a backdoor to that crypto, oh no, now we're talking about the heart of the issue WIKI LEAKS is all about crypto and how the NSA has a special skeleton key to the seed keys released by NSA projects like NIST and ENISA (europes equivalent).
Now in 1995 to 1999 or so this was discussed in many thousands of pages all over usenet, try to find them now, most are gone, now I actually participated in that era in some usenet discussions about the ENNISA paper, you cannot find one thread now mentioning ENNISA from the 1990's.
So erased all the discussion in math and physics groups about ENNISA?
Yet, if you really know where to look, you can find some references to the work, not ENNISA but the person's name and some of the the actual math still exists.
Now, the math is in books, who published the books, the guy that released it has his own publishing company and it was done via ebooks.
So I have a copy of the ebook. I know it's real.
Now today you have academics taking credit for bits and pieces of his work, and they are 100% controlled sock puppets of the NSA.
So the NSA is now controlling what the public learns about this discovery 20 years after the fact it was released via usenet.
One of the new algorithms is the Atkin sieve, look who published it with Atkin, the guy that sued the US Government in the 1990's to allow software to be published without interference of the NSA.
Look at the guys wiki page, he was tutored by the guy that actually created ECC, the stuff the NSA is using to backdoor all encryption today.
So 1995, the guy is suing the US Gov and 10 years later he is at AMS as the co-author of one of the 3 prime algorithms discussed in ENNISA in 1995.
Just google NSA and AMS, see all the NSA funding.
Just like when academics rebelled in the 1980's against the stranglehold the NSA had on crypto, guess what the NSA did, they bought out all of academia with grants.
Now I'm not a tin foil hat guy/girl, I'm retired, I was in academia and I can actually discuss stuff about math and how academia works and how various topics were taboo in the 1970's through the 1990's.
So AMS MAA AMA, etc, all are now in bed with grants and funding from the NSA.
You look at sieve of Atkin and who is on the paper the kid that sued the government over crypto software in the 1990's, who was groomed by the daddy of ECC now the top crypto used by NSA and all the crypto gang, and now you have wiki leaks exposing how corrupt and back doored ECC is.
So 1995, no one would publish anything about algorithms that could destroy modern crypto as the ENNISA paper claimed it could do.
Usenet was the way you discussed stuff in 1990's.
I've had access to the net and such things since the 1970's when it was created as a defense project by having the top think tanks use it.
So back to the article, while none of the real 'conspiracy' related issues with why this algorithm was released in 1995 as it was via usenet and then via a controlled publishing company the guy that released the algorithm controlled, that was the only way you could bring to light this amazing new algorithm that very few people understand.
However, the GITHUB project allowed even laymans now to understand how important the 30Mod algorithm is to primes and therefore to crypto
The world of academic publishing is controlled by NSA and they control REDDIT and they created Bitcoin (it uses ECC and Satoshi Nakamoto is Japanese for Central Intelligence that's how brazen they are).
ECC created by Lenstra. Lenstra groomed the kid that sued the NSA who is now in bed with them. That kid is co-author of the 60Mod sieve of Atkin, and 30Mod, 60Mod and 90Mod prime algorithms were all released in 1995 by DR ADONI, who owned his own publishing company so he could publish what he wanted, and the info was put into usenet under ENNISA and guess what it is now erased. It was also put into a case from 1995 in which Dr. Adoni sued the US Government for harassing him over ENNISA.
Go post stuff about Dr Adoni and the NSA and his algorithm on REDDIT and see how fast it gets deleted, just like here, so NSA bots? Or mods?
haha
The original paper discussed how the 8 prime spirals would make all modern encryption obsolete, now 20 years later wiki leaks has the info the NSA cooked all the seed keys with special knowledge of the numbers they released through NIST and ENISA.
So to summarize, in 1995 no academic paper would publish a work that stated
WARNING THIS FORMULA DESTROYS MODERN CRYPTO
Now you have the 30Mod parading under Croft Spirals inside PyPrimes, guess what Croft didn't create the 30Mod prime formula Adoni did.
Then you had the Adoni 60Mod prime work released by the guy that sued the NSA who got his doctorate under LENSTRA the guy that created ECC the NSA crypto now used.
You search around google you see how the NSA is behind all the top academic journals now.
Wiki deleting an article on the 8 Prime Spirals with the speed test cite to GITHUB that no one challenged and anyone can duplicate with the open source software is the start of alerting the public to how the NSA now controls all ECC crypto.
And wiki was used by the NSA to create a bs smoke screen over the sieve of Atkin, which is really pretty irrelevant to the real 30Mod formula aka 8 PRIME SPIRALS
So now that you all can UNDERSTAND how academia really works and how the NSA has a stranglehold on it, you can understand why wiki was chosen as one of the paths to reveal what is happening.
30Mod is the big deal, it was released to Usenet in 1995 and it is now 99% erased, since it explains how the formula can be used to create CORRUPT SEED KEYS in crypto.
Wiki leaks now explains the NSA has corrupt seed keys, and they used ENNISA to do it.
2004 the kid that sued the NSA releases sieve of Atkin a slow algorithm which was only discussed in ENNISA as being an insignficant twin sieve to 30Mod, 2x30mod is 60mod and the algorithm in 60mod is completely duplicated, but it's slow since you are double checking work, 30Mod is the speed demon in primality as pyprimes verified.
Then you have the real secret part the 90mod loop or prime trigger, 3x(30n+p) is the trigger to create a vibration in primes unique from 1x(30n+p) and 2x(30n+p)
That prime sequence is where the NSA is cooking ECC.
Now any mods that deleted this topic, did you realize that in the 1990's you could not publish anything about crypto without the NSA stamp of approval?
Do you find it suspicious that the guy that sued the NSA in the 1990's suddenly has his name on a part of a 1995 paper claiming it as his own work when everyone in academia that got the 1995 paper (a lot got it) knows the 60Mod sieve of atkin was in the ENNISA paper in 1995.
Then you realize that kid on the paper of atkin was groomed by Lenstra the daddy of ECC and you start to look at wiki leaks and ECC and you see, ECC is cooked.
Now most will say TIN HAT STUFF, its not, it's real and wiki leaks proves my claims.
So WIKI was used by Sieve of Atkin crowd to disinfo primality research, here's a sieve guys use it, it's slower than the sieve of Eratostenes its why the NSA allowed the AMS to publish the rip off of Dr Adoni's work.
Did the AMS or AMA or MAA touch the real algorithm? 30Mod, the stuff actually put into PyPrimes which verified how powerful this prime algorithm really is, it destroyed all the top prime algorithms.
Now outside of academia, who can actually discuss what this means?
NO ONE
Academia had a muzzle on academic pubs for decades.
Then the kid that sued the NSA appears in 2004 as the co author on 60Mod prime algorithm which is slow, and that algorithm was given as an example of how the 30Mod repeats endlessly
30mod, 60mod, 90mod, 120mod, 150mod, 180mod, 210mod, all the wheel factorization algorithms are using 30mod as its root.
So why is wiki bots (nsa bots) deleting this info? Are is it really just IGNORANCE on the part of mods to not understand why the AMS and AMA and other academic pubs could not in 1995 publish ENNISA and won't touch it today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_atkin
Who was the co-author?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein
What was he known to be doing? In the 1990's he was the guy challenging the NSA over publishing of crypto related info in software, which is what the ENNISA FORMULA is, a blueprint to how to use crypto to backdoor all modern crypto.
Here is the crypto case Bernstein who co-stole 60Mod prime algorithm suing the NSA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
Now think about it 'mods' or 'nsa bots', you ask why didn't the AMS touch this in 1995, haha.
THE NSA RULES SAID CRYPTO STUFF CAN'T BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THEM
So in 1995 ENNISA PAPER released to usenet and 99.9% of the discussion on it is now ERASED by the NSA.
Yet if you know where to look, you see IT IS REAL and was discussed in math groups and such in the 1990's.
10 years later you have the kid tied to the NSA releasing a red flag, yo crypto geeks, look here at my 60Mod work. The same work that was in ENNISA as a FOOTNOTE to explain how the 30Mod real algorithm would repeat and 60Mod was one of the proofs.
Now think about it, Bernstein is a smart guy, so why didn't he just release 30Mod not 60Mod which is slow?
RED FLAG an NSA PROJECT to mislead people.
Then 2010 Croft appears, with the real algorithm 30Mod and he meets the same NSA bots, it's useless, yada yada yada.
Yet PyPrimes uses it and it crushes all known primes.
Now there are alternative news sites covering this stuff and I guarantee you the NSA bots or spincter tight mods at wiki would never let you cite these alternative news sites.
Now how does Bernstein connect to ECC? It's all over his work, afterall he was groomed my the daddy of ECC Lenstra, Doctral advisor of Bernstein was LENSTRA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lenstra
So now wiki mods can look at themselves, wow this weird article with no usual cites from academia was deleted, now we're all being explained in 1995, when the ENNISA appeared with a warning THIS DESTROYS CRYPTO, there were rules in place as to the NSA having to approve any such work. Of course it would not be approved.
Now you have a wiki article about 60Mod which is really 2x30mod and the 30mod is the real speed king as pyprimes a major programming cite states.
So wiki allowed sieve of atkin in, and that work stole 60Mod work from the 30mod work of 1995.
The Pyprimes is proof of how important 30Mod prime algorithm is, SoA (sieve of Atkin) shows a modification of 60Mod which is pure NSA smoke screen to mislead people from 30Mod and if there are cites to whatever is on the net, while not traditional news but time stamped math usenet posts showing 30Mod the root of 60Mod prime algorithm was discussed in 1990's, wow, that is proof 30Mod existed a decade before 60mod and almost 20 years before the croft spirals.
Of course AMS and AMA etc will never touch a paper saying this is how you cook CRYPTO.
haha
PUT THE ARTIClE BACK
Now you understand why you will not see this work in academia, it's forbidden by the NSA
Now does the NSA control wiki too?
IT DOES IMO unless you put this article back
Drprinceton (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)DrPrinceton
You need to pay attention to this or you will eventually end up permanently blocked
In both academia and Wikipedia, peer-review is what matters. Peer-reviewed academic journals at least accept original research, Wikipedia does not (see WP:NOR). If you have ebooks that are not self-published or published through pay-to-print companies, you can try to cite those.
If you can't understand that, then there's little reason to believe you could begin to understand understand advanced math, much less have been involved in academia. If you cannot quit throwing insulting everyone, we'll have little reason to believe you're not just some trolling kid or unstable basement dweller and keep you blocked. That's how it works. We don't give a damn if you can't keep up, but it should matter to you if you want to get any information onto this site.
This site has expectations to prevent crackpots from posting their pet theories everywhere. Instead of bothering to learn about them, you've thrown temper tantrums as if we're supposed to bow to your tyranny, as if this was your dictatorship instead of a community with existing social contracts that you've selfishly chosen to ignore. Why shouldn't we just treat you like a crackpot?
We do not accept your little conspiracy theories as an excuse. We do not care what you think, or about your opinions. If there was some sort of conspiracy out there, wouldn't Wikipedia be a front for them? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- (TL;DR) In brief: Given a choice between (a) reading the policies and guidelines that have existed for years and years, observing how the articles you wrote obviously don't conform to them, and realizing that it would be an anomaly if the pages weren't deleted, and (b) declaring that the reason we don't do what you demand (just because you insult us, scream a lot, and write repetitively and almost endlessly) is because we must be part of a vast conspiracy, you choose (b). —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Drprinceton, the heading of this sub-section is correct: you may end up being blocked permanently. I'm going to give you leeway on this talk page to answer Largoplazo's concern, but I am going to remove that lengthy text on your theory: Wikipedia user pages are not soapboxes. If you repost such texts, essentially abusing the project, I will block you permanently and take away your talk page access: talk pages are to be used by blocked editors only to request or work towards an unblock, and answering Largoplazo's questions could conceivably lead to one. Further screeds and personal attacks will lead to a permanent block. Please don't let it get that far. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I will add that in the event you manage to stay unblocked, any discussion about GitHub's use on Wikipedia as a reliable source should be conducted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, not here. In general, any online source that consists of user-generated content (like GitHub) is not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Drprinceton (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton
The way wiki immediately took down the 8 prime spirals pages and the minor referer pages about the person that discovered it way back in 1995 who also has a new project known as HelixQ is a joke.
Let's see the argument of wiki is that the 8 Prime Spirals are not 'peer reviewed', in academia anything involving crypto and national security has been censored for decades and in 1995 when the original paper came out revealing numerous new prime theory that was years ahead of prime theory then, there was no way for such work to even be published, so USENET was how it was distributed, and it's a fact usenet has been heavily edited involving the topic.
Now you can all point to your rules about 'peer review' but this shows how ignorant everyone thus far is about academia and censoring of math involving primes and crypto. Let's see wiki has a page on Dr. Bernstein, a guy that took the NSA to court in 1995 the same year the paper was released, so that's how restricted publishing prime theory as it relates to crypto was in 1995, and is still today.
You expect NSA funded journals like AMS to allow such information to be 'peer reviewed'?
Anyway, my original article was 'heavy handed' killed by 'mods' at wiki and if you don't think the NSA has infiltrated wiki and almost every type of mass social media on the net (and yes to me wiki is a social media/project) then you need to read on the Snowden documents.
So the article put a light on some very interesting 'prime theory' that is supported by GitHub, anyone can check the github cite to see the info that every so-called prime algorithm and many have pages on wiki, all failed to outperform a 2300 year old algorithm, aka sieve of Eratosthenes, all expect for one algorithm, a prime spiral algorithm that I KNOW has been around since 1995 and a theory that has been heavily censored by the NSA since almost any reference to the many posts about ENNISA Prime Formula has been erased from Usenet, the original 'social media' of the net.
That all being said, I'm constantly now being 'threatened' by who? Mods that think me insisting the removal of the original page is suspect to obvious manipulation most likely by the NSA?
Prove wiki has no NSA bots or mods controlling the discussion, put the page up and let it be edited properly.
The original article was what I would think any real mod not working for the NSA would agree was pretty NPOV, and the 'cite' to github verified the whole claims, that a new prime algorithm is beating all known prime algorithms, something the other wiki page prime algorithms do not do.
The original article referenced the discover is connected to obvious 'disinfomation' as well, and the continued supression of anyone discussing his work and him as was done by wiki in this article is defacto proof that the PTB want to keep the public and academia in the dark about significant advancements in prime theory.
Anyone can google NSA and the major journals you think are 'peer reviewed', what do you see searching NSA and AMS, oh it's funded by the NSA. LOL
That's your 'peer review', so any real mod here can step in and put the original article back. The PyPrimes test of the algorithm shows how major this work is.
Then the public can decide who discovered it, I know the origin is 1995 and 1997, I've been following it that long, and to see wiki put up pages about a slow 60Mod algorithm from 2004 that was discussed in the same prime work in 1995 is a joke.
Then you start to peel away who are the guys involved in all this new crypto and prime work and you start to see nothing but NSA funded projects.
What you don't think the NSA had laws in place for decades banning such work? They did. And now they control the academic journals with funding to furthr control what is released about anything that can impact crypto and the heart of crypto is what, PRIME NUMBER THEORY.
The mere fact that a project that is open to PUBLIC SCRUTINY by competent computer programmers has shown for over two years a new prime algorithm is the so-called king of the hill of prime theory, and wiki mods and most likely NSA/wiki mods are doing their best to treat the PyPrimes speed tests like they are insignificant.
The fact is PyPrimes exposed how advanced the 1995 work of Dr. Adoni was by it beating all the major prime algorithms.
The fact is PyPrimes referred to the 1995 30Mod Prime algorithm as 'Croft Spirals', which is a joke since Croft created his site about the theory in 2010, then in 2012 PyPrimes picked it up, and now wiki is saying so what, there's a new prime algorithm that dethroned every prime algorithm wiki has pages on.
I personally think I did a great job of being NPOV and then to see mods come along and OUTRIGHT LIE it was not cited is more disinfo, then to see mods saying no peer review, yeah sure, NSA controlled math journals are going to print what they want buried, a real new prime algorithm that can out do any known algorithm and also do what the Snowden documents says the NSA has done, that being cooking ECC seed keys issued by NIST and ENISA.
The needs to be a wiki page on this, it's a 'big deal' if you understand math and primes that the PyPrimes tests have verified a major advance in primality was made.
I could have cited many so-called 'news sites' in the article but I know they are not NPOV sites, so why bother.
PyPrimes test is a legitimate cite and by having the prime spirals 'out in the open' so they appear for prime related searches by anyone in the world as the page will eventually do, will expose to the world, did you know a major new prime algorithm exists and test it yourself, download python, download pyprimes, run the tests yourself, and when anyone does, they all ask, WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS.
Oh, I tried to discuss it on wiki and what happened? ARTICLE DELETED in minutes.
LOL
Now I'm being threatened with a permanent ban for questioning mods that are either working for the NSA or really just bad mods that have no clue about why NSA controlled academica journals will never discuss a prime algorithm that the NSA uses to cook ECC seed keys.
Now if you don't think the NSA has cooked all the ECC crypto, read wiki leaks, it was done, how was it done?
They got the ENNISA Prime algorithm in 1995 when they seized the computers of Dr. Adoni, do you want me to cite SIX US SUPREME COURT CASE FILES over his false imprisonment in US jails over bogus cases? They exist.
So while many who refuse to do THE RESEARCH to verify these claims will say tin hat loon, it's real, very real, just like the PyPrimes primality tests is very real and repeatable so anyone can redo the work and see a major advance in primes was made and it's 30mod prime spirals and the discovery happened in 1995.
Why would wiki have a page on SoA, sieve of Atkin from 2004? 60Mod prime algorithm is based on 30Mod, 2x30Mod gets you 60mod, incase you can't do basic math.
Oh, the paper on it came out AMS, the co-author is tied to the creator of ECC the crypto now cooked by the NSA.
haha
Again, none of these claims of conspiracy were in the original article, but I'm sure discussing them now.
PUT THE ARTICLE BACK let it be properly edited and cited it is controversial and then see how the article stands.
Drprinceton (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)DrPrinceton
- TL,DR. We don't really care about conspiracy theories. We are concerned with building an encyclopedia based on verifiable and reliable sources, not publishing original thought or breaking news. Thus far, you have not given a single example of a reliable source (not self-published, not user-generated content) providing coverage of your topic.
- You should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest because you have one. Wikipedia:Articles for creation is the proper venue for someone with a conflict of interest to submit articles for assessment by a neutral reviewer, rather than trying to publish it to main space yourself. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You mods are making wiki look bad in my opinion. I got notice of a news article about the censoring of Dr Adoni's prime theory.
As a fan of his books for many years I can assure you his prime theory has been in several of his books for many years. He often puts the same chapters about his major theories in most of his books. I don't see any wiki pages on his creator formula proof either. It is remarkable. Dr Adoni has cites all over the world. The Guardian, Der Spiegel and Washington Post are just a few articles I remember reading.
Wiki looks foolish in this article due to you mods.
http://247news.net/news/nsa-controls-wiki-professor/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primealgorith (talk • contribs) 06:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The only ones who look foolish are the conspiracy theorists who won't look beyond the specific circumstances they're all riled up about and look at the bigger picture.
- Anyone who bothers to look can see that I and the other two Wikipedia editors cited have years of involvement in the deletion of articles, and removal of additions to articles, that don't conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It would be laughable for anyone to claim that the NSA has the slightest interest whatsoever in the sorts of articles that have drawn our attention over all these years.
- If we had anything to do with the NSA or any other sort of cover-up, can you imagine any other scenario than that (a) Drprinceton would have been blocked instantly and his account deleted; (b) failing that, that his enormous screeds of fury on this page would have been left here, complete with all the material that the NSA supposedly doesn't want anyone to know about, right up to this very moment, rather than having been deleted immediately with all evidence erased that it had ever been contributed?
- A hallmark of a conspiracy theorist is the rejection of explanations that anyone with a background in the subject area (in this case, how Wikipedia works) would know to be true. For all his screaming about how he's an expert on mathematics and we aren't, perhaps it would help for him and some of you to acquire expertise on Wikipedia's infrastructure rather than making up your own ideas about it and drawing outlandish conclusion rooted in ignorances about the subject matter (Wikipedia) on which you presume to pass judgment. You all seem to be big fans of passing judgment while lacking the necessary context within which any rational judgment can be passed. It's irresponsible, and a big waste of everyone's time, including your own. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
lists.wikimedia.org. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger One ping only 06:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)