User talk:Dr. Ronald Cutburth

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dr. Ronald Cutburth, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Talk:Dr. Ronald Cutburth, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kleuske (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Dr. Ronald Cutburth[edit]

A tag has been placed on Talk:Dr. Ronald Cutburth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 "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. Kleuske (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of DR. RONALD W. CUTBURTH[edit]

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 DR. RONALD W. CUTBURTH requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a webhost for you views on EMP[edit]

Please do not use Wikipedia or the page assigned to you as your userpage to promote your own views on electromagnetic pulse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost. Acroterion (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of DR. RONALD W. CUTBURTH[edit]

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 DR. RONALD W. CUTBURTH, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It 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. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 14:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself, at DR. RONALD W. CUTBURTH. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 14:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, but it is not a place like Facebook or LinkedIn for people to write about themselves. It is a quite different sort of site, a project to build an encyclopedia, so it is selective about subjects for articles, and writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography.

The links in the Welcome message at the top of this page will tell you more about Wikipedia. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 14:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your latest edit[1] which was reverted:[2]

Although you keep claiming that your Ph.D. Thesis supports various consipracy theories, you have not made your dissertation available online, so nobody can double check those claims

You also tend to hide the fact that your Ph.D. was in Administration and Management of Engineering Science at Walters State Community College.[3] a field that has nothing to do with EMP.

Your Ph.D. dissertation title is "Operations Analysis of Engineering Sciences; The Mission of Lawrence Livermore National Lab" -- a subject which has no apparant connection to EMP or explosives.

You are a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice[4] (Famous for pushing the theory that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed through controlled demolition by pre-positioned devices.)

You claim that "Nano Thermite AND Nano RDX Destroyed the World Trade Center Towers"[5]

In addition to your previouisly discussed psuedoscientific claim that the human brain reacts in a nanosecond, you claim that "human mind is capable of growing knowledge at a rate near a nuclear explosion". [6]

And finally, you have failed to provide a single citation supporting your claims. Please go way and stop bothering us. We have an encyclopedia to write and have no time for your nonsense. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Electromagnetic pulse, you may be blocked from editing. Warning for repeatedly adding personal comments to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dr. Ronald Cutburth. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon that is correct. I wrote to you that I filed a complaint about your use of libelous commentary about my an a public page. As they recommend to step back and don't let things get heated up and suggest I resolve our issue through the disputes format. That I will do. Except for now another has warned that I need to stop making disrupting comments. So I will stop making comments about the Electromagnetic Pulse and Nuclear electromagnetic Pulse pages. I have already filed my point in my comments. They demonstrate the writer failed to present proper science. 
   And Now Guy Macon you have chosen to use libelous comentary against me again. I expect that is so you can convince people there are things wrong with me. Specifically your assertion of where and what my Ph.D. is in a what it demonstrates is substantially distorted. You also state that you don't see what that has to do with EMP or explosives. As you have not stated what my degree is about you then create a falshood. So I am forced to add to this lengthy conversation to defend myself against your libelous claims Guy Macon. 
   I hold a Ph.D. In Admenistration and Management of Engineering Science Operations. I drop the word administration as it is sort of redundant when my degree is in Management they are almost one in the same. I achieved my accredeted degree from Walden University institute of advanced studies that was at the time of my graduation listed as an accredited institution accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges of advanaced learning.I insure that I always include all of the Engineering Science Operations titles as that is a significant registered specialty. When introducing my credentials I usually include my Dissertation topic. All those that know about a Ph.D. know the dissertation topic is crucial yet you chose in your libelous commentary to leave that our then say that is does not represent any knowledge applicable to an EMP or explosives. I Also hold advanced credits in 5 categories of engineering science. They are Mechanical engineering, electrical engineering electronics engineering, manufacturing engineering and controls engineering. two of the topics apply directly to analysis of explosives control and use those are Mechanical engineering for explosive force analysis and its effect on mechanical structures and controls engineering which are essential for analyzing or designing explosives detonation means and plans. As I have advanced credits in 5 categories of engineering that qualified me to evaluate the science research programs of Lawrence Livermore Naitonal Lab. I have stated that LLNL is the US primary nuclear weapons steward.
    Though you chose to insult me about brain speed you provide no reference to demonstrate I am not correct on the actual velocity of potential prain speed. I also noted about your prior libelous that my web site http://www.lovefromthesea.com is not designed to be a science paper location but a general topic discusion on encrouraging people to grow knowledge and you call it siudoscience again. As you chose to libel me again we need to mark this as an about your libelous intent.I did note to you that you have not read my PhD. dissertation,and includes topics of knowledge acceleration. Guy Macon if your posted resume is correct you hold no degrees in anything. We see also you may have no knowledge as to how degree achievements are aquired. You also state other things that have not basis. With this long list of libelous comments about me anyone should see why you have made errors in your analysis of the Electromagnetic Pulse page and Nuclear Magnetic Pulse page. At this time I can show to the public that they are not scientific fact. That is why I said they have errors. You have not yet demonstrated education enough to determine that. So stay cool and stop taking libelous shots at me. I am not going to post any more comments on those page. They are not disruptive but instructional and as you have shown in your libelous of me we can see your claims in anything may not be factual.Stop harassing me with libelous claimsDr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You used the words "libel" and "libelous" eleven times in the above paragraph, and below you claim "I have filed an administrative complaint." That sounds to me like you are contemplating legal action, but others may interpret it differently. Please clarify. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Dr. Ronald Cutburth, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:

Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
Please send an e-mail to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I wholly endorse this block - I was beaten to it by another admin by about two-and-a-half minutes while waiting for the blocking interface to load. If there should be a block appeal, I will reblock this or any new account created by this person on the grounds of multiple warnings for disruption, blatantly using Wikipedia as a platform for personal promotion, personal attacks, and legal threats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must be told specifically what you identify under WP: PA, WP: Disrupt or any other claim you use to block me or support a block. Others have used libelous commentary against me for which I have filed an administrative complaint.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked this account based on confirmation of identity in VRTS ticket # 2016120410001751. Pinging Kudpung and BU Rob13 who may wish to re-block for other reasons. Sam Walton (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the repeated use of "libel" above constitutes a threat of legal action, but a block for disruption and promotion may be in order based on some of the things pointed out at the ANI thread. Since Kudpung expressed views on that, whereas I haven't reviewed the editor's contributions beyond the username issue, I'll leave it to him to act as appropriate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll give him a second chance to be less promotional about himself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Thanks folks. I suggest there be further reading about engineering science and physics with regard to the two pages of "Electromagnetic Pulse" and Nuclear Magnetic Pulse. Those both are used or can be used to make false claims that the US can be subjected to an across the nation electrical black out. That is specifically a National Security issue for which extreme caution should be used. This is on the order of a claim can a poison kill Someone, and it can but an encyclopedia post claiming it can not can get people killed. As an across the nation blackout has been claimed to be able to cause the death of 80 million Americans. Thus one should proceed with caution. I found these to pages on electromagnetic Pulse and nuclear magnetic pulse to have significant errors and stated that. I posted a definition and it was removed by somebody. In the demand that I also cite technical document which I did. Now following my post with a definition nobody worked with me to clearify anything. So I turned to the page Electromagnetic Pulse and using the edit feature I noted there were missing technical citations. I found more than 3 and posted an edit that they need technical citations. There was no attempt to give them. Instead It was claimed I am doing disruptive editing. Thus that is more than a double standard it is a false claim on what I was doing. My edit points that asked for technical references were also deleted. Consequently both pages of "Electromagnetic Pulse" and Nuclear Magnetic pulse" are not supported in science. This I find a horrendous error deliberately cased by falicious claims that I was disrupting. Also the issue of those issues representing a National Security issue is fundamental as to why I entered the conversation. I Expect wikipedia will not let those issues stand. Specifically the conversation on those two pages need a great deal more highly scientific discusion.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep claiming that the Electromagnetic pulse page has significant errors regarding how EMPs transfer energy. Please provide a citation to a reliable source that you believe correctly describes how EMPs transfer energy. You have been asked this multiple times and have not provided a citation other than your own alleged expertise. Please do so now.

You have been asked multiple times to properly format your comments and have been referred to our help page at Help:Using talk pages. Please start formatting and indenting your comments correctly. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you specifically what you asked for and you deleted it without comment. You need to now explain in engineering terms and citations why my expanation on how it tranfers energy. . You also chose to not respond to may posts on the page that (would that be you) that you need to supply technical references for the current page. Apparently you chose to violate the wikipedia rule that you meed to supply technical references. You also chose to libel me rather than work with me. First things at hand then are you need to clean up the page "Electromagnetic pulse". Specifically the page does not properly define in science the stated post name of Electromagnetic Pulse. Also recall Y stated with reference how the electromagnetic page is in error on the issue that it is specifically wrong that it claims electromatic energy by electric field or magnetic field. That is a violation of the Laws on physics and you must clerify that without repeating your question. I just stated again your significant error and your failure to provide citations in multiple cases. You have chosen not to explain why my definition fails as you simply deleated it. This you have followed with libelous commentary. It seems you are responsible for not correcting the page. I am not responsible to do that. I have simply supplied you with information which you don't respond to. It seem you have violated the wikipedia rules on technical citations, not I. So fix your page as it is not founded in science. If not your failed definition contributes to a national security issue, not me. Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion noted. Please provide a citation to a reliable source that you believe supports your claims.

Get your facts straight. I have never deleted a single word you wrote to Talk:Electromagnetic pulse or any other page except my user talk page, and I have never edited Electromagnetic pulse.

The very next time you write the words "libel" and "libelous" in reference to me I will consider it a legitimate threat of a libel lawsuit and will respond accordingly DON'T SAY IT AGAIN UNLESS YOU ARE ACTUALLY THREATENING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ME. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Guy Macon stated. Libel is a legal term. It carries at least a small implication of legal action, something that is specifically prohibited on Wikipedia. You may pursue legal action off-wiki if you believe you have grounds to do so, as per the laws of your country, but you may not threaten legal action on-wiki. Do not refer to actions as libelous in the future unless you are issuing a legal threat (in which case you will be blocked as per our policy on legal threats). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not Guy who deleted the offending material, it was me - the one whose sig you are unable to click on to discover my real name, the one who is not only a more experienced Wikipedian than you but also more qualified in electromagnetics. The post I deleted contained no citation to any reliable source for your more unusual claims, it offered Wikipedia nothing new but is preserved here. To help you engage better with our community, here are a few pointers:

WP:CITE provides you with help on how to present a recognisable citation,
WP:OR will help you to understand why we will not accept arguments on your own authority but only those of a reliable third-party source,
WP:RS will help you to understand who is or is not a reliable source,
WP:CIVIL will offer you tips on how to present yourself as a person without disrupting the rest of us. Apologising to Guy would be a good start. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Steelpillow that is a nice list that includes references on why and what citations are needed for a technical comment and technical page. Historically the first time I looked up the wikipedia source on "Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse" and "Electromagnetic Pulse" I could see there is a problem with scientific reference on those pages. I just looked again and there are 10 locations where the Nuclear Magnetic Pulse page has little blue notes (citation needed). I would think wikipedia admin would delete the page. For the "Electromagnetic Pulse" page there are still several scientific claims with no citations and there is still the original error I wrote about that in error claiming that electromagnetism has 4 ways to transfer energy. The top two are by " Electric field" and "Magnetic field" That is shown to be in error by the wiki page "Electromagnetic Field". There is also no citation mentioned though I just gave you one. Another fundamental error in both of those is that even though the "Electromagnetic Field" page has errors and no technical citations it is referenced in the "Nuclear Magnetic Field" page.When you one chooses to leave those two pages in error one contributes to a national security issue. I am not responsible for your choices. Your duty is to keep those pages accurate and meeting wiki policy or to delete them. Then what happened. I came back to look again after many months and found those pages still short of what they could or should be. Interesting that when I cited my Ph.D credentials people think I am bragging or marketing. To be clear my Ph.D was accomplished after writing 7 state to be Ph.D. level technical papers using scientific citations as required by my Ph.D. university. Holding a Ph.D. in Administration and Management of Engineering Science Operations puts me at the management level of any engineering science operation. So though that list Steelpillow provided is nice I would prefer who ever is responsible for those two science pages to correct them.  You chose to block me from doing it. You were also not nice about it. I have other things to do right now including write a general interest paper for publication through my publishing company. I did write that I plan to file another complaint here but that will be after I publish my expose on another topic regarding explosives. Cheers.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a hurry I wrote an error. Any place my note says "Electromagnetic Field" page has errors. Substitute that the "Electromagnetic pulse" page has errors. Any place I wrote the "Nuclear Magnetic Field" Page has errors substitute "Nuclear Magnetic Pulse" page has errors. Incidentally when talking about reference and citation reference My Ph.D. dissertation title is "Administration and Management of Engineering Science Operations; The Mission of Lawrence Livermore National Lab copywright 1997 cutburth". That dissertation includes an evaluation of over 200 engineering science research programs accomplished or in work at LLNL in 1996. To accomplish that dissertation and meet the Ph.D. level citation rules I provided citation reference to more than 100 books citations and over 30 science research topics in multiple categories of engineering science and physics. I have stated those two wiki pages of "Electromagnetic Pulse" and "Nuclear Magnetic Pulse" have errors, thus they I don't believe are proper scientific material for a technical reference.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion noted. Please provide a citation to a reliable source that you believe supports your claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 break break break.    
      Guy Macon Your last note has nothing to do with anything. I wrote personal commentary on my talk page that suggested the "Electromagnetic Pulse" and the "Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse" pages have errors. In particular they don't have citations or have citation requests that are not filled by anybody at witipedia. I followed those comment points with reference to my Ph.D education and use of citiations. Somebody at wikipedia who is responsible for those pages needs to fix them or ignore my comment.I was also blocked and warned to not post anything by an individual from admin I think.So Guy Macon to now post that I should supply a citation one needs to guess what that would be about, about my Ph.D. notes, or plans to write a paper for my publishing company or anything about more overall discussion on my personal talk page seems superfulous, and again somebody at admin threatened me to not write posts on those pages. I stated that I dropped that work and Thus I conclude I am stopped. I don't plan to write more on those pages. Its not my responsibility to fix them. Currently I am busy working on other things outside of my wiki personal talk page.

Please don't write any more notes that I need to do anything.ThanksDr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that we close this conversation here. This is Dr. Cutburth's own talk page and special conduct conditions apply. He has volunteered a self-imposed topic ban in main article space. We can worry about the future when it arrives. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This will be my last comment unless Cutburth resumes his disruptive editing outside of his own talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Break Break

  That is a good plan folks. I might write a page on Brain Speed, as people have little knowledge as to how fast they are able to think. This should be useful to the public. There are a few other pages I can add that would be useful to the public that I included in my Ph.D. research papers and dissertation. No response comment is needed about those here.Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]