Sup banga? You recently undid my revision on a section here, where I had provided more balance views on the alleged "problem." These revisions after having perused the previously used sources and looking for third-party writings to support the "problem."

Ultimately I find that there is no widespread acceptance in peer-review papers that the theory is consider "problem", that this is just a view of a very few writers who are mostly writing popular non-fiction books like CONTROVERSISES in science.

The old content assumes their views was generally held and gave undue precedence to them also without clearly identifying their arguments.

The new content waws more short and and precise, identyfing two specific arguments presented (which represents the full spectrum as far as i CAn tells) -- these is the "disturbing" people and the "absurd" people. As these are not really arguments against the equations of science that give rise to Boltzmann brains, per se, the views of a "problem" are marginal and opinion (confirmed maybe by LACK of peer review papers by other authors).

If yuo read the two sources cited in that section you find that both my paragraphs is supported by those sources and does reflect the claims and implicit assumptions made by the said guys.

Anyway All of this I already say on the Talk page which you not even bother to respond to before deleting. Thanks foo

Sup again gee

Look you also remove my rewrite of this section sayin it is "unsourced." Like three times it explicitly states "read the introduction" because thats the source. This section is reworked to help the reader by making explicit the MANY SUBTLE THINGS that are implicit in the technical part of the article. Did you not read the introduction?

Yes, In a universe with Boltzmann brains, is also spontaneously formed SPACE CLOWNS. Maybe you don't think so let me show you:

• You have not delete all the other sections everywhere, so I assume you reckon those technical descriptions and refered source materials is cool beans -- me too HAPPY FACE
• Those bits are saying like "given enough time, every possible structure (including every possible brain) gets formed via random fluctuation"
• every possible structure
• Clowns are a possible structure (no source needed)
• And I included a reference to the source of the information that there are space-clowns: "did you not read the introduction"

Why is space clowns worth mentioning? Ok because some readers and authors on this topic are "disturbed" (Carroll -- which everyone in the article is using as a source) by being a Boltzmann brain. It is important to not "scare" people away so much that they don't want to think about it. So we can quickly point out some of the less scary things like space clowns. This way it's not 100% brains that are delusional.

In fact I also point out that there are brains which know they are brains, which is less disturbing because "the universe isnt lying to them" or something.

I Only mention it quickly, because its not the main interesting part of the article which is that you can be a space-brain and you would not be able to know it (Boltzmann brain). But when you are presenting information, it is helpful when you define something to do so by showing examples of things which it is not. THis way the person he has a better understanding of what is and is not the concept meaning. Seriously you can read about this it is called education or pedagogy is how you write that sometimes.

Listen brah I also have this on the talk page which you dont comment on, but I think you should comment on it because thats nicer than just deleting my stuff which I work hard on to help people understand without using racially prejudice terms like all the Boltzmann brains are "abnormal observers". Because terms like "abnormal observers" is hurtful to call someone, even if that person only thinks they are a brain and actually a simulation, it still hurts because they think you are calling them abnormal.

Together we can stop the spreads brah

Following an exchange with a participant, I agree that I may have closed the AfD too early. I have reopened the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hospitals in Angola in order to generate additional comments and to tentatively reach a consensus. The article has been restored in the meantime. Olivier (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bvatsal61, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Nandi (mythology) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]