Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative solution to Zeno's paradoxes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Cirt (talk) 10:00, 21 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)

____________________________________________________

I am not being able to request to move this page to my own user page. How to do it. I do not wish to lose the discussions Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.