User talk:Bkpsusmitaa/DiscussionArchive

Archive of the first discussion page
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, 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 Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!  Acroterion  (talk)  17:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes


The article Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Original research and commentary

While all 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  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  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Acroterion  (talk)  17:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The article should not be deleted
I have removed all personal links.

I am sharing my work with others, even if it is original research.

Articles for deletion nomination of Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes
I have nominated Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Acroterion  (talk)  12:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

More About Your Zeno's Paradoxes Article
I'm very sorry, Bkpsusmitaa, but your article Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes just isn't consistent with Wikipedia's purpose and is too contrary its core policies to be allowed to remain. Please don't take this as any personal rejection, or as any reflection on the value of your ideas. I liked your ideas very much, actually, i.e.: "This is because Zeno is ... attempting (to) ... change and control our ability to observe an event..." But even if your ideas happen to represent a brilliant new breakthrough, as may be the case, that has nothing at all to do with why this article can't remain on Wikipedia. Even if Einstein had submitted his ideas on relativity to Wikipedia in the same way, they would still have been deleted under Wikipedia's policies.

Please do consider reading some of the links others have provided above, and using the article wizard if you'd like to submit an article in the future. That wizard program helps users understand what can and can't be included in Wikipedia. It would also be helpful, if you want to understand this more fully, to look at the policy concerning original ideas. The gist of the matter is that Wikipedia articles can't be used as a place to publish new ideas or research, regardless of how great they might be. Articles can only cite independent, reliable, third-party publications. Further, creating an article (or adding to an existing one) to promote one's own original ideas or research is almost always against policy as well. Finally, one of the principal standards for inclusion in Wikipedia is the concept of notability, and without first being published in a peer-reviewed, well-accepted journal, it's very difficult for any new contribution in science or philosophy to meet that standard.

By the way, I haven't thought very much about Zeno's Paradoxes myself, but based on what you wrote in your article, I'd like to suggest that you might like to look at the article on supertasks, as well, if you haven't already done so.

Please don't let this experience disappoint or discourage you from contributing in the future. Just take it as a simple learning experience, please. You're very welcome here; all you need to do is read more about Wikipedia's goal and polices to contribute effectively. Finally, you should feel free to delete all the comments made to this your talk/discussion page about this article, once you're through with them. ( You can do so by selecting the "Edit This Page" tab at the top of your window. ) Thanks again; everyone here appreciates your intention to improve and expand Wikipedia, and I sincerely hope you'll contribute in the future. Ohiostandard (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Addtional comment: Bkpsusmitaa, I'm so sorry a user was rude to you at the  deletion discussion for your article; that was uncalled for, and in violation of Wikipedia policies, as I noted in my response on that page. He could be blocked from editing for such behavior; it's not characteristic of the kind of responses you'll generally see here... In fact, I'm going to take a look at his comments to other users, and see whether that might be appropriate at this point. Thanks again for your contribution; after learning just a bit more about how wikipedia works, you might like to see whether you can help improve some of the articles related to Zeno's paradoxes. Best regards, Ohiostandard (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________

Please feel free to delete the article since I have been asked not to do this myself - and delete this as fast as possibleBkpsusmitaa (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article will disappear very soon, but when you say, "...and delete this as fast as possible", do you mean that you'd like the comments on this page you're currently reading be deleted, too? If so, you're perfectly welcome to do that yourself. I know that must seem confusing, but the rules for editing your own talk page (this page, in other words) are different. All you need to do is click on the "edit this page" tab, at the top of this page, delete everything, and click the "Save page" button at the bottom of the screen.  You might like to save some of the links, though, until you've had the opportunity to look at them, but that's entirely up to you. Ohiostandard (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________

No, I would _not_ like that the comments be deleted too. And I am thankful to you for your having taken so much care to allay misunderstanding. This is commendable.

Actually, what I find is that rules are killing the humanity slowly.

I can accept slanders, and I would logically refute them. It is something we people of science have been prepared to accept.

There was a time (around renaissance) when people of science did not bother about rules for publication. People like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton would print a book and the work would be attributed to them.

There is a book titled "Decline of the West", written by Oswald Spengler, which discusses about the general evolution of a particular civilisation, along with its birth and death. The cause of decline, I believe, is because of parasitism, of backbenchers controlling the men of science with extensive rules.

Ayn Rands suggests a way out for the men of science in her book, "Atlas Shrugged". Her suggestion is expressed through her characters, chiefly, Francisco d'Anconia, Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, Ragnar Danneskjöld and John Galt. There is one statement which I particularly like. It is, ""Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us."

What I experienced in Wikipedia, when I thought of sharing my article, was an eye-opener, and the issue would be taken up in my book. But it is important to see how technology can not clear up the minds of the people or let them take a meaningful decision but hide behind quagmire of rules instead. I have always maintained that when a man uses a mobile phone he is just being gadget-aware, but he is not augmenting his rationality.

I am thankful to you for your having suggested that I looked at supertask. I am conversant with most concepts of philosophy like I am conversant with those of mathematics. I am a physicist by passion and training.

It has been found in recent studies that most ground-breaking articles have been rejected by peer-reviewed journal. Also, significant journals have allowed fudging of data to elude their keen (how keen?) observation.

It is in the nature of the individuals of a slave system to first latch on to a position of some influence and then keep clinging on to it, shifting the responsibility of regular, mindless, repetitive work to someone else.

You have talked about Einstein. Like him I am against institutionalisation of the system, because it allows parasites to usurp the efficiency of the system. And ironically, it is this institutionalisation that people of science (actually, self-attached glorification tags) are promoting.

I challenge any famous scientist to hide his name and affiliations and get an original work published. He will invariably fail. Scientific temper is nearly extinct.

However, I can see that you retain your rationality. But I can also see that you are bogging yourself down by following mindless rules and regulations. Something that you can not justify to yourself should be rejected. Otherwise people would end up as Judas. Remember Paul when he denied the Christ thrice!

Rules can serve only as guidelines to make life easier (called Principle of natural justice). They are not alive so as to be sacrosanct.

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________


 * There are many academics who would agree, I'm sure, that academia is essentially a racket. Perhaps most of them would. I was reading an academic's web site the other day and he said as much, in the context of his comments upon the ridiculously high prices of many academic journals. And of course you're perfectly right that publication in such journals is largely or mostly a political process, and that the merit of the ideas presented has very little or nothing to do with it in most cases. This isn't entirely a modern problem, though, I think. Different groups have always tried to control the "marketplace" for the communication of ideas. Galileo had the Church, of course, and even Newton had the Royal Society to please and manage, in order to get his ideas published. There really is no place that I know of for a well-trained person who isn't credentialled and vetted by a major university to get his ideas published, no matter how great they might be. In any case, I wanted to thank you for your kind words, above. Wikipedia is not, perhaps, quite what you might have thought it to be, and its limitations can certainly be onerous at times, but it does have considerable value, nevertheless, and I very much hope you won't let your disappointment over your initial experience keep you from contributing in the future.  Best regards, Ohiostandard (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________

No, I will definitely not let my disappointment over my experience influence my using, or contributing to, Wikipedia. But Wikipedia also is being usurped gradually by vested interests, as you may see from the diversity of the comments regarding the deletion of my article. You could smell the obnoxious odour of disdain, megalomania and dispathy. Please read, for example, the comments of Ironholds,in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alternative_solution_to_Zeno's_paradoxes:

1. "...To summarise: we're turning into judas by obeying rules, "men of science" such as himself are being oppressed and scientific free thought is close to extinction. Oh, and some people aren't getting published in peer reviewed journals....",

2. "   * PERMISSION GRANTED to do that with your own money and server space. 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)." and

3. "...So you knew that Wikipedia was inappropriate for this stuff - and then posted it anyway? On your head be it, as it were. Wikipedia is not a place for OR as you well know, and it isn't a place for soapboxing either. Your poor opinion of peer reviewed journals and however good your intentions may be inside your head are irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)..."

But friend, observing the systemic anomalies and doing nothing about it is also a sin. Last time Jesus is said to have requested his father to forgive mankind, and Buddha promised that he would not seek salvation until the last of mankind attained emancipation. This time I am sure the two have learnt their mistakes - that in an evolutionary program there has to be outcomes that has to eliminated, and only a minuscule selected.

And I am learning. In a evolutionary program of interactive distributed intelligence, only if the neural network units are allowed to be methodically probed using narco-analysis, polygraph and neural-mapping, the system would collectively be competent to separate the chaff (evil) from the grain (benevolent). Otherwise, the evolution-incompetent, survival-hungry, parasitic program-chunks would bring down the system. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________

Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be original research and commentary/analysis on the part of the contributor, mixed in with possibly valid discussion of work by Peter Lynds. There may be parts that are salvageable or mergeable to Peter Lynds, or this might all be on the fringe.  Acroterion  (talk)  12:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - obvious OR. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place for putting your cutting-edge research and/or crackpot theories that you'd like to think are cutting edge. Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so shall I remove the article straightaway, because the directive says I should not. I only wanted to share my paper with readers, removing personal references. Don't you think labelling something as crackpot without going into the detail is kind of unscientific and rude. If I say that wikipedia is not a place to showcase your personal erudition how will you feel? Just tell me if I have to remove the article and I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkpsusmitaa (talk • contribs) 13:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find a guideline or policy saying we don't like erudition, sure. Note that I was saying crackpot/cutting-edge research; you may well be a world-famous mathematician, I don't know. Ironholds (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, your remarks and your sarcasm violate multiple policies. Please assume good faith, please be civil, and please don't bite the newcomers. Ohiostandard (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've at no point assumed bad faith or been directly incivil. Do you see any rude words about? Or sarcasm, for that matter. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, as per request by article's creator  on his talk page, viz. "Please feel free to delete the article since I have been asked not to do this myself...", made at 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC). Article was a good-faith attempt, but author not sufficiently familiar with WP policies. His request meets the G7 criterion for speedy deleteion since the article's creator was the only contributor. Ohiostandard (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete As per above discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read my post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bkpsusmitaa Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To summarise: we're turning into judas by obeying rules, "men of science" such as himself are being oppressed and scientific free thought is close to extinction. Oh, and some people aren't getting published in peer reviewed journals. At the end of the day we're not peer reviewed journals, and we don't accept original research. Ironholds (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ironholds, please do not get me wrong. We are playing into the hands of the usurpers, first by forming rules to suit them, and then by following their mindless rules. I know Wikipedia is not a place to submit original research. I already copyrighted the material way back. I wanted to share the ideas with others, so as to nullify the racket that peer-reviewed journals often become. The frustration is not because of not being published (grapes are not sour). The frustration is because I can see what is going on behind all those rules. By our inaction, despite us seeing the systemic anomalies, we are strengthening the hands of the usurpers and evil. Why not launch a sub-site where people could submit and have their ideas peer-reviewed? Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notwithstanding the lecture above. Protonk (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PERMISSION GRANTED to do that with your own money and server space. 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you knew that Wikipedia was inappropriate for this stuff - and then posted it anyway? On your head be it, as it were. Wikipedia is not a place for OR as you well know, and it isn't a place for soapboxing either. Your poor opinion of peer reviewed journals and however good your intentions may be inside your head are irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted the information contained in my copyrighted material, legally obtained from the government. So technically am at liberty to share the information, removing all personal links, because I wanted people to ponder and improve the inputs I had already placed. I also learnt a little late that wikipedia does not do OR. I only knew wikipedia improves information by peer review and I knew this would serve my purpose. What would I achieve by keeping my work closeted until I could get published in a peer-reviewed journal. Let people share it anyway. Long before the ages of peer-reviewed journal people shared information just like that. So I should add a _now_ to my earlier comment to avoid confusion? 59.93.245.193 (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, fair enough, misunderstood. Regardless, we don't do OR, and we only peer review articles based on secondary sources. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And I wish to inform you that your way of conversation is not very civil. Maybe some book on etiquette will help you overcome your sarcasm? To me people who are deeply anguished by the society, or are frustrated, are sarcastic, otherwise we are here to complement each other, and that is chiefly how the society runs.

And peer reviewed journals are indeed in a mess in general. 59.93.255.100 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you not see the irony there? "you aren't very civil, therefore you must be deeply anguished or frustrated". Why, that's not very nice! Feeling frustrated are we? Society doesn't run as an "everyone is nice to everyone else" - it isn't part of human nature. Pick up a book on sociology. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

____________________________________________________

I am sorry. I would rephrase. Frustration and anguish are normal. People, who do not have a defence-mechanism against the anguish and frustration, will succumb, and I am empathising with you, not showing you the mirror. Sociology does not say men can not be superior. Society does not consciously know about complementarity. But half the human population does it, namely, mothers. Please, knee-jerk reactions can not help us. We need to outgrow ourselves.Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC) ____________________________________________________


 * So you're saying I lack a defence mechanism now? I don't see how this is you trying to move away from making hypocritical personal comments. Not half the human population are mothers, and I don't understand exactly what you're trying to say. Ironholds (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

____________________________________________________

I am sorry. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

____________________________________________________

Speedy deletion nomination of Human ape
A tag has been placed on Human ape, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you want to contribute another article, but to avoid having everything you contribute tagged for deletion you're going to have to slow down and carefully read some of the links that people provided when your first attempt at an article was likewise tagged. Your second effort is certainly closer to the target, but it wouldn't have been at risk of deletion, as it is now, if you'd read and followed the instructions in a link that was posted previously near the top of this talk page. You really do need to read more, and slow way down. There are a lot of great ways to contribute to Wikipedia (and learn, in the process) besides creating articles right away.


 * But my specific suggestion at this point would be to click on the link for "Your First Page" that someone provided after your first article was tagged for deletion - the link is in the second paragraph on this talk page - and make sure you study it well-enough to understand it completely. Section 6 in "Your First Page" begins, "Consider creating the article first in your user space...". It's a more complicated now, however, and you'll need to ask the help desk about how to move Human_apes - after any delete tags are removed in an allowed way - to your user space. But I'd caution you against asking for help with that before you've carefully read the introductory links that you were given previously. I know you mean well, and I'm glad you're enthusiastic about contributing. But we're all volunteers here, too, and your unwillingness so far to follow up the recommendations to read the links you were given has created a lot of unnecessary work for other people. As they say on the help desk when students post their classroom problems there, please do your own homework. :-)


 * It may help you understand this if you look at this article which has been under development by one of your old friends in a subpage of his user space for over two weeks. Look at the history tab, to see how long he's been at it, and please notice that the article has not yet been submitted for inclusion in Wikipedia proper. I only mention that particular article, btw, because I happened across it when I was responding to your reaction to his initial negative comment on AfD. I'm not saying your first article has to be anything like that comprehensive, but you do at least need to make sure you follow the instructions you've been given if you want any article you contribute to remain on Wikipedia for more than a day or two.


 * Anyway, don't waste any time feeling bad about this, or getting angry. Just "shake it off", and take it as a learning experience, as coaches tell sports players here who've been stunned by an on-field knock. For one thing, probably 95% of articles by new users are tagged with a speedy delete, so you're in good company. For another, it'd be much better to spend the time learning how to get your article in shape, or helping improve other articles in small ways if you don't feel you have the time or patience to rescue it at this point. I haven't minded making this one additonal reply, because I appreciate your eagerness and good will, but I really do need to get back to my own priorities now. I'll try to look in a few times over the next several weeks, however, to see how you're doing, because I'm absolutely convinced you have a great deal to offer here ... provided you'll do your homework, that is. :-) Ohiostandard (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I'm glad to see this speedy delete for Human_ape was declined. You won't mind, I hope, if I offer a small suggestion re your editing? If there's no reason to prevent you from doing so, it'd be helpful if you'd try to hit the "Show preview" button at the bottom of screen when you're editing, rather than using the "Save page" button quite so often. It's not a great concern at all, but that would make the edit/change history easier to read. There would be fewer discrete versions to step through, as you'll understand if you look at your four entries (saved versions) between 19:36 and 19:39 on 16 September 2009 in this history document. Thanks. Ohiostandard (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reading so much
Dear Ohiostandard, , I thought contributing to wikipedia would be exhilarating because of large-scale complementarity, and that someone would be there to cover my drawback. But I realise that such things are not happening.

I can not read too much, because of my reading and writing disabilities. I have bypassed the writing disability with the keyboard, and the reading disability by skimming across topics, and I did fairly okay in my studies.

Particularly, I did not know things like userification and user-subpage until now. I hope I would pick up these things as time goes by.

Can't you ask some of your friends to polish up the article.

In the meanwhile, I would use the preview button. 59.93.160.189 (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I can't.


 * First, I have my own priorities here, and I've already spent at least ten hours trying to help you achieve yours. Second, it now seems obvious that you haven't spent even an hour or two looking at the excellent introductory material others directed you to about how to create an article. Third, you ignored suggestions to use the very simple article wizard, and the result has been a considerable measure of unnecessary work and distraction for other people, myself included. Fourth, there are places you can solicit help for your article from other volunteers yourself, and I don't know where those are since I've never tried to do that. Fifth, your understanding of written English, and your ability to write it appears to me (from previous communications) to be superior to the skills that most native speakers of the language have, so even if you have some disability in that respect, it still puts you ahead of most people. Sixth, I already made it clear that I had offered all the help I was prepared to give you at this time. Seventh, I find your nearly exclusive focus on getting published here, and your apparent absence of any broader, impersonal motive rather difficult to accept. Eighth, and last, just a short while ago I told you very politely that I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. Nothing about that has changed in the last seven hours, and I'm certainly not about to ask anyone else to do it for you either.


 * I may be willing to help you again at some time in the future if I see that you've made a real effort to learn what you need to know, but otherwise I don't think it would be good for either one of us if I were to try. I mean no disrepect in saying any of this: I don't know if you'll understand me, but I think it would have been disrespectful at this point not to say these things directly. I'm sorry if they're difficult to hear, however. Ohiostandard (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

____________________________________________

I will surprise you. Nothing you say is difficult to hear. I already treat you as my brother. I have heard worse without empathy. At least I know you have it when you criticise.

And I have difficulty convincing people that I have autism and dyslexia (double jeopardy). It was only with great effort (and intellect) that I overcame the problems superficially. To me letters are like labyrinthine jungle. So once I have written down something, I can not revise them. I only have my freedom when I watch a movie.

It took me forty minutes to read your current post, just because you wrote first, second, third,... clauses side by side. Can't you figure out my difficulty by the way I format my letter.

I know no one in wikipedia except you.

I am actually not intent on publishing. I can not contribute by editing because everything is so perfect already. What happened today was that I had forgotten the name of the program (YES, Human ape), and did considerable search to retrieve the information. So I thought I should keep it permanent somewhere, because it is an outstanding documentary.

You may never see me edit an article or write anything ever again, because I do not know what I can write. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohiostandard's reply

 * Years ago I helped a schoolboy who was dyslexic try to learn to read. I know it's a genuine problem that can be really debilitating, and I feel a lot of sympathy for anyone who struggles with that, or with any challenge to learning, including, of course, autism. I'm sorry to hear you have such challenges.


 * I have been so impressed by your ability to put words together in complex, sophisticated ways that it just didn't seem reasonable to me that you could be impaired enough to make it impossible for you to read a page about how to create an article. But it took you forty minutes to read my post? Maybe it will make you feel better if I tell you that it took me longer than that to write it, and that I still wasn't very happy with it when I finally hit "save". I'm incredibly perfectionistic (some might say OCD!) in some things, and writing is one of them.


 * It's unfortunate for you that so much of our learning has to come through reading, but I don't really know how you can avoid reading the instructions list entitled "Your First Article" if you want to create articles, even if it takes you days to get through it. It would be like a person who knows nothing about traffic rules or how to operate a car, and who decides to just get in and drive, and expects that others will explain it to him as he goes along. Besides causing frustration to others, he would waste his own time, too.


 * Your human apes article illustrates that, I'm afraid. I like what you wrote, very much, but I'm concerned to say that it may not remain on Wikipedia very long. Some editor, sooner or later, will probably decide it's not notable and nominate if for deletion. Knowing how to decide whether something is notable by Wikipedia standards is indispensible. You can create a really interesting, well-written article, but you'll just be wasting your time and setting yourself up for a disappointment if its topic isn't notable, or it doesn't meet other inclusion standards.


 * If it really would take you days and days to learn the basics by reading, perhaps you could find a friend to make an audio recording of what you need to know? And I know using the article wizard would be a tremendous help to you; you should definitely use it if you're going to create any new articles. Btw, I'd suggest you ask the help desk whether a topic meets the notable standard before you start on another article. All they can do is give an opinion, but it will probably be a pretty accurate opinion, one that other editors would also be likely to have themselves.


 * Thank you for hearing my criticism without feeling defensive. That takes courage. I wouldn't have allowed myself to express such frustration if I'd understood your challenges. Concerning your challenges, are people like Stephen Hawking an inspiration for you at all? If you haven't seen him trying to communicate before, you should, really. If your internet connection will support video (mine won't, usually) then please take a look at [this video] from Youtube.


 * As far as, "I can not contribute by editing because everything is so perfect already", I have to tell you that you're very mistaken! There are thousands and thousands of article that need references or footnotes or sources added, or that just need expanding. Some of them can be found through the Article Rescue Squadron - just click on the first link at the top of that page to see the actual list of articles in need of "rescue".


 * Another really good place to find articles that you can work on, probably a better one, is this article. You still have to learn about Wikipedia standards for inclusion, first though, or you may end up working on articles that won't likely be kept. And you should ask on the help desk for other places to find articles that need assistance. ( You might even want to list your "human ape" article with one of those places, although there's a risk that doing so could cause someone to flag it for deletion as not notable. )


 * Lets keep this discussion, and any other discussion that's not about an article that I've contributed to, on your talk page, please. You needn't be concerned that I'll not see your comments because they're not on my talk page. I'll look in here from time to time. For now, though, I really want to spend more time improving articles and less time on interpersonal communication, so probably no reply here for a week or so. Nothing personal, though, but interpersonal communication is just not my motive for spending time on Wikipedia. Good luck with your editing, and do remember to use the help desk if you get stuck and can't find an answer after looking on your own for at least five or ten minutes. Best regards, Ohiostandard (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanksgiving to Ohiostandard
......Years ago I helped a schoolboy ... dyslexic try to learn to read...I have been so impressed by your ability to put words together in complex...


 * My dear friend, you are lucky to have been born in a better country with infinitely more emphasis on human values, and do not know the real India (not the shining India of the ads. I am similarly lucky not to have been born in Ethiopia or Somalia).


 * I did not know I had the problems until I was well into adulthood. I have never had the treatment for the problems (and this was a blessing in disguise), because my parents and I was not aware of the issues because of my superior abilities. Afterwards, it did not matter as I had learnt to bypass those difficulties. Richard Stallman, for instance, ALSO has the problem of reading deeply, but he has bypassed the issue.


 * Frankly, I do not consider the double jeopardy as problems any more. It did suddenly become a problem when, out of my enthusiasm, I wanted to share information, because in the past I had read somewhere that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia built by collaborative effort.


 * I found I was abused and my intention questioned just because I wanted to share, of course without knowing the rules. Tell me, when there is opportunity for me to keep using wikipedia just as effectively without reading the rules of posting, why should I take the trouble of posting at all, given my disability? :) . Anyway, this is just an observation. I understand I have a social responsibility, and hence I would learn some of the un-set.them.aside-able rules.


 * Instead of treating the 'twin jeopardy' as problems, I now treat them as gifts. I now think that the world is running at far slower pace, and that gives me an opportunity to give something back to this world. It only becomes a problem when I have to read a book. I take things easy and cover 5-6 pages in a day, or simply skim through.


 * After a time reading no longer remains important, if there are other sources.


 * I am used to think in abstract, mental movies and pictures, and only because of my superior analytical skills I was one of the best students in my class. In fact, I picked up the reading and social skills with a great deal of difficulty.


 * I had very poor social skills when I was young, very introvert and suddenly aggressive, because I used to react when people expected me to follow their ideals or fixed standards. But gradually, my logic helped me analyse the complexities of social life and overcome them.


 * It was like I used to record the events in my mind and then replay and analyse them over and over again. After a time my strategy was also to cultivate female friends because they were generally more empathic.


 * I am fairly advanced than most people of my age, but that does not mean I do not have difficulties in some areas. What people see is the polished outcome, not the difficult soul-searching for days.

....... incredibly perfectionistic (some might say OCD!) .......


 * Your case is definitely not OCD, but an anankastic personality trait. People with this trait generally strive for perfection. OCD is different. You won't be able to stop doing certain tasks, and your intellect would be low, as your thought-patterns are going round and round on one issue.

......It's unfortunate for you that so much of our learning has to come through reading......


 * It is because average humans do not progress at all, and the technology-implementation of the society closely follows the average intellect.


 * I have ideas and I implement them to create audio-visual teaching material for my spouse, who is a teacher. Professionally, the material is superior than TTC materials, and there is little written word. I am lightning fast when it comes to abstraction and simulations.


 * I can visualise EM wave travelling in a medium, 3D sound waves travelling in water,... A time will come when we would learn without words, when there will be brain-computer interface. Then we would realise our true potential.

..........notability ...... and...... help desk ......


 * I will definitely have to learn, and seek support from helpdesk, when I want to contribute again. And I never thought of contributing to wikipedia, because to me it is very informative, but maybe backdated (no audio-visual content), because it is predominantly text-only. Man is not born to read. He is programmed to absorb information from 4D environment, in real parallel processing. He has just acquired it because it was the fastest method for keeping records at one point, and was then used to transmit knowledge.


 * But as you will see, the society reflects a mental stratification, with people of lesser intellect believing in rituals, cult, folk-medicine, religion, etc., and those of the highest intellect, involved in the synthesis and evaluation of knowledge and the real nature of knowledge or reality itself (like I said, anthropic, pionic and mountainous realities, in Zeno's paradoxes). Depending on their intellect people get stuck to a cognitive-vocational level (or a particular period of history where such cognitive level were sufficient for the 'in demand' vocations for that period).


 * Hence, nothing better than reading has evolved, although there was a possibility. There have been graphical novels, but they too involve words. Production of movie is expensive. But as CGI combines with Computer generated Holography and AI, these barriers will be removed, and like we now have "The Shriek" movies we will have movies on Newton's first law, second law, ..., group theory, game theory, chaos, series solutions. If you have seen software like Mathematica, Maple, Maxima (I use Maxima Algebra system in Debian system), etc., you will understand what I mean.

......people like Stephen Hawking an inspiration for ......


 * My friend, anyone, who has excelled in spite of disability, has a special place in my heart. But Hawking can not replace Einstein there. I know he was well into adulthood when he was first diagnosed having the disease. He got the best of medical support, and still can enjoy life through his senses. Einstein was born with a defective (to me, special) brain (so far as the average ability of the then-German society was concerned) at a time where there was no help and there was (and still is) no love and empathy in school. I request you to watch a Hindi film, “Taare Zameen Par”, or "The miracle worker", you will live the lives of the protagonists and understand what Einstein had to endure just because the fellow citizens did not understand the problems. The average are just stereotypes.


 * I read Hawking's book first in 1989, perhaps, and learnt about his neuro-muscular atrophy. But Einstein is my idol. I first read Einstein's biography when I was 11 years old. I could identify myself and my suffering with him immediately.


 * That biography was a Bengali version and Bengali interpretation. Not many things were covered. An average Indian writer does not know about autism or dyslexia. Einstein's belief or disbelief in god is very difficult to understand for most men, let alone Bengali writers.


 * Then in 1988, I read Broca's brain. Carl Sagan wrote a wonderful biography on Einstein in his book, "Broca's brain" and did justice to him in a way others (Einstein: the Life And Times, by Ronald W Clark, for example) have not been able to. Clark did very poorly trying to suppress the fact that Einstein was a patent clerk, perhaps because, to him the unusual profession was an anomaly for a genius.


 * Einstein to me is the power of one mind over billions of others, notably, Gauss, Lorentz, and other mathematicians, who were far better placed to solve the problem with light, but none could, because they did not have the vision to see the problem. They were too engrossed in their superior mathematical technique.


 * Evolution has been ruthless to dead-end perfect organisms - just look at the Tigers, Crocodiles, cockroaches, ants,... Man with his large brain has displaced them from their prime position. If the length of survival is considered, ants and cockroaches will outlive man. But if outcome in terms of auto-catalytic intelligent life with the potential to have infinite intelligence and cognition is considered, man has come the closest.


 * The problem with the average man is that even though throughout the history there has been people just popping up from nowhere to change the history of the world (Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther, Newton, Copernicus, Edison, Einstein, ...,∞) man still tries to set up rules and regulations for everything. Einstein was nearly crushed by the weight of those rules in education, but in India (and even U.K.) we still have those rote-learnt examinations.

....... "I can not contribute by editing because everything is so perfect already", .......thousands and thousands of article .......


 * It is perfect for me, so far as text-only material is concerned, because I can skim through and have all the information I need and much more, and I can not read too much.

.....about Wikipedia standards for inclusion ...you should ask on the help desk for other places to find articles that need assistance......


 * I will gradually learn with support.

......list your "human ape" article with .......


 * I think in terms of bird's eye view (one big picture). I have seen references of many movies in wikipedia, which are better covered here than in IMDB. So Human Ape should logically be here too, because it is an excellent documentary. And if someone replaces my article with a far better one, I would have no qualms. Rather, I would be happy. I really want to watch the film again.

.......Lets keep this discussion.....on your talk page, please......


 * Sure. I just kept a short message that I have placed a reply in my page. Next time, maybe I might just add a smilie if I wish to draw your immediate attention.

......really want to spend more time improving articles and less time on interpersonal communication.......


 * Sure, I understand your concern.

......do remember to use the help desk........


 * Okay. I will. And thanks for forgiving me.

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your very gracious reply, here. There's a lot of wisdom in what you write; I would never say that written text is the one best way to present knowledge. I'm pleased that video production equipment is becoming much more affordable, for example. I've seen some great instructional videos on Youtube, and elsewhere, too. I'm especially pleased that major universities are putting a great many of their courses on the web, for free. The University of California at Berkeley has many such offerings, Massachusetts Institute of Technology has over 1900 courses on the web, and Stanford University has put their entire first year computer science curriculum on the web. My internet connection isn't fast enough to view video very reliably, but it's a very encouraging trend, nevertheless. Best regards, Ohiostandard (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages
I had been to the pages of RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive', and I was amazed to see the cleanliness of his pages! So neat! How to archive the posts like he does. Can someone give me a little initiative? Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the page you need to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page Let me know if you need any help. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I have been able to resolve the misunderstanding between me and ohiostandard, belated thanks for your intention to help. I will go through the topic and get back.Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)