Slehar

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 18:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

---

Steve, in creating an article about yourself, Steven Lehar, you are automatically placing it in danger of being deleted. See Don't create articles about yourself and Avoid self-references for the applicable Wikipedia policies. Please see Wikipedia's deletion policy to familiarize yourself with various reasons an article may be evaluated for possible deletion, and Votes for deletion for the procedure involved. I am not nominating the article at this time, but you should be aware that someone else may do so. If your work is considered notable, you should have no problem finding someone else to write an article about it, and using references to support the entry. Your work may indeed be significant, but I am sure you understand the problems inherent in open editing making it possible for anyone to create a vanity page, which the policy is intended to supress. Additional information you may find useful are the policy on no original research, and the guideline on vanity pages. --Blainster 21:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Blainster. Thank you for your feedback. Although I am brand new as a contributer to Wikipedia, I was aware of the vanity articles rule, and the risk of rapid deletion of my new page Steven Lehar. In this case however I would plead special circumstances. My work is being actively ignored by the scientific establishment because it runs counter to some widely held paradigmatic assumptions, which however turn out to be outright wrong, as I can demonstrate to any reasonable-minded person. The fact that I am not a merely a self-delusional kook is demonstrated by the fact that two of my papers have actually been published in peer reviewed journals, they make very significant bold claims, and yet the feedback from the community has been almost complete silence, or "ignore-ance". I see from your user page that you have an interest in consciousness, and thus you are in a position to make a judgment on my theories. I urge that you check out my on-line illustrated Cartoon Epistemology to get the general thrust of my main theory, or you can read my recent paper on Gestalt Isomorphism for a more formal presentation. The fact is that my Representationalist position is very often discounted as thoroughly implausible, (as seen for example on the Representationalism page) because nobody has heard the counter-arguments to objections like the Homunculus fallacy. The fact that I present a significant philosophical position which is widely and unjustifiably ignored in the literature is, in my view, justification for my having to unfortunately present it myself. As you say on your own user page, sometimes, under special circumstances, it is valid to Ignore all rules. To see the absurd and indefensible series of objections to the Representationalist thesis, check out this debate on the PSYCHE-D mailing list, the outrageous objections by reviewers of my Gestalt Isomorphism paper, the absurd comments by commentators in the open peer review of my paper, and contrast that with the reviews of my book including "I think it is reasonable to suggest that The World in Your Head is a seminal work that is destined to become a fixture in the conceptual landscape which no one seriously interested in the study of perception can reasonably ignore. It's hypotheses, models, implications, and extensions are likely to influence investigators for decades to come. It is obviously a 'must read' for anyone interested in visual perception...". I think that material deserves exposure on Wikipedia even before it is recognized widely elsewhere.--Slehar 14:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Page titles

(I sent the following question on page titles to (talk) )

If I discover a page whose name does not abide by the conventions, e.g. [[Berlin School]], which should actually be [[Berlin school]], (second word in no-caps) should I bother to rename the page to what it should be? (Would that screw up other links to that same page?) Or should I just link to [[Berlin School]] and leave it at that? Slehar 15:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

In cases like that, there should be a tab called "move page" somewhere--use that. I believe it's disabled unless you have a certain number of edits (can't remember off the top of my head), so until then, you can just let it sit, or use Wikipedia:Requested moves. Best wishes and keep editing, Meelar (talk) 15:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

As far as naming conventions go, the rule is that things go by the name they're most commonly known as. For example, if there were only one person named John Wood, he would go there. If that's unavailable (e.g. there's more than one thing with the same name), then you move to the most specific possible name (perhaps John Travers Wood). Since there's no other article at Berlin School, that title should be fine. Hope this helps explain things--if not, feel free to ask me again. Best, Meelar (talk) 18:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WorldInHead.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WorldInHead.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Early anthropocene for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Early anthropocene 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/Early anthropocene 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 template from the top of the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Steven Lehar

The article Steven Lehar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The page seems to have been created by the subject, and 7/8 of the links are to the subject's personal webpage, and there are no supporting citations. At the very least it needs to include citations from secondary resources, be checked to see if it accurately reflects what appears in those resources. This needs to be done to ensure that there is no WP:COI or WP:SOAPBOX here.

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. Rschwieb (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Interested in your research

I saw your article Steven Lehar. I want to know more about you. Do you have a skype? Are your research paper available online? Did they got published in any peer reviewed journal or got rejected because of apparently anti revisionist politics? Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Multistability.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Multistability.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Multistability.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Multistability.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)