Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (x)




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

The result of the discussion was delete. @harej 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (x)
failure of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not your web host" and WP:UP "what may I not have on my userpage?" which specifically lists "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia", "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." and "other non-encyclopedic material". It is essentially a collection of Original Research and Synthesis about how his name is in the Royal Coat of Arms and the royal Ciphers. Ironholds (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not for Original Research or Synthesis. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply from Stephen2nd, It is only “Original Research,” until qualified references are added. I’ve asked for specific sections that need such references, but the arguer has refused to comply with my request.
 * I have deleted User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (x) from my user page, (where it was hidden) and I have tagged it with a user page, informing everyone that it is “Not an Article”.
 * My personal information in Sandbox X is less than a paragraph, and is not excessive.
 * My user space pages are compatible with the Wikipedia project to build an encyclopedia. My user page is about me as a Wikipedian; and a way of organizing the work I am doing on related articles in Wikipedia; it helps other editors to understand with whom they are working; with information about me, my areas of expertise and my real name. I plan to turn most sections of this, into a number of appropriate Wikipedia articles. My Sandbox X is a storage function, a collection of terminologies relating to the Sciences of Heraldry, and Armory, which is not academically available worldwide. I believe these Sciences are as important as any other Sciences, as such; my researches on these are in my User page Stephen2nd (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to: “original research and undue weight towards made-up numerology - conspiracy theory-esque crap - crap I made up in my head". Ref: Displaced numeric sequences disguising identification details on my official identity documents, were issued to me by British government authorities in 1977. [Precedent]

A. Privy Council origin; Executive legislation; Current usage; 42 million witnesses; Covert Identification system; Restricted knowledge; Police investigations.


 * In 1972, John Peyton PC, Minister of State for Transport, directed the Executive Agency DVLA; (responsible for issuing driving licenses and maintaining a DVLA database of 42 million British driver license holders), to phase out the old red license for a green license. As UK had no ID card, these were used as identification, by the police to identify drivers. All licenses contained an encoded numeric sequence identification number, known only to the Privy Council originators, government, DVLA, all police authorities and the courts.

B. Stephen Mowbray McDermott; Encoded identification; Government database.


 * As stated on my license; from 31-08-1977 to 26-03-1998, I was issued with 25 licenses.
 * Ref: (1) Surname. (2) Other names. (3) Date of birth. - Place of birth. (4) Date of issue.
 * Ref: (5) Driver License number as the DVLA database (encoded*) identification number.
 * Ref: My DVLA database identification number is: MOWBR 506292* S99GJ 25 (issue).
 * E.g. My birth date 29 June 1952 is depicted as 29 06 1952, 29 06 52, then coded 506292.
 * I.e. The 1st; 2nd; 3rd; 4th; 5th; 6th; digits are encoded into the 6th; 5th; 2nd; 3rd; 1st; 4th; digits.

C. De-coded numerology.


 * The day 29; originally (2 as the 1st digit & 9 as the 2nd digit): is displaced and encoded so the (2 as the 1st digit becomes the 6th digit) & the (9 as the 2nd digit becomes the 5th digit)
 * The month 06; originally (0 as the 3rd digit & 6 as the 4th digit) is displaced and encoded the (0 as the 3rd digit becomes the 2nd digit) & the (6 as the 4th digit becomes the 3rd digit)
 * The year 52, originally (5 as the 5th digit & 2 as the 6th digit): is displaced and encoded so the (5 as the 5th digit becomes the 1st digit) & the (2 as the 6th digit becomes the 4th digit).


 * I don't know exactly what you mean by posting your personal details here - your use of them is not being questioned, it is the content in your sandbox. Inferring that your name is found within the Royal Coat of Arms and Cipher is original research and always will be original research unless you know of an author/publisher/academic/journalist who has written an article on how it appears. The inclusion of that material is not encyclopedic and has no use in Wikipedia articles. Ironholds (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Userspace is not for extended unencyclopedic speculation and discussion about numerology. Gigs (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply from Stephen2nd: This sandbox is not an article or an extended unencyclopedic speculation on numerology. Sandbox X is an anthroponomic study of the history of the names; Stephen and Dermott, which happen to form my name, many other names, including 154m Google references; all 154m of which, “including mine”, can be found on this Royal Arms; motto and garter. By “precedence of third party prior use 1972-09,” proves this is not WP original research. The (majority) remainder of Sandbox X, are encyclopedic historical records of heraldry, armory, and a history of many notables; from Caradoc Caratacus, to the present. As seen in my contributions this research is used for many Wikipedia articles.


 * This is neither WP:OR or WP:SYN. As a neutral arbiter between competing theories, it is a main concept that all evidence must be empirical, “information proven by observation”. Hypothesis: Dermott can be obseved by pivoting fingers on the N of Dieu et mo-N droit. Put little finger on N point L & R 7 times. (Proof of a working hypothesis that is testable). Proving a working hypothesis as testable, is self evident, without any further verification. The “Clue in his name,” article in the Telegraph; was “researched and published, by a journalist” in 1995 - without any reference information from me, whatsoever. The method of finding these names in the Royal Arms, was requested by a Judge in 1997, as being on oath, I have stated the case record verbatim, in context and without synthesis. This official case transcript was “published by a very reliable source,” being “official judicial records.”

D. Case evidence: Crown court: Primary source: 1997: (Published by reliable source.)


 * The hypothesis of “Dermott obseved by pivoting fingers on the N of Dieu et mo-N droit,” was originally “demanded under oath in a Crown court,” by his Honour Judge McMullan; Regina v. Stephen Mowbray McDermott: St. Albans Crown Court. Transcript: 30-10-97. “Proceedings of appeal against conviction and sentence.” Published by Barnet Lenton & co, London.


 * P.24-39 [24-9]: Judge. “G II Statute - Prince’s flag.” [25-11]: SMM. “Do you accept that this is a statutory representation of the sovereignty of this country according to the law?” [16] Judge reply: “That is what you say it is, yes.” [27] Judge: “Whereabouts is the name Stephen Dermott on your flag?” [26-23] SMM: “(demonstration)”. [25] Judge: Yes. I see. [39-11] Judge: “there is no restriction on the reporting of the proceedings in this court.”

E. Case evidence: DVLA: Primary source: 1999. (DVLA Computer print – Court record)


 * Section 69 and schedule 3 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984; Section 52 Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994; Vehicle and Driving Licenses Records (Evidence) Regulations 1970; As authorized by the Secretary of State, I hereby certify the detail in this document is a note of the information contained in the (DVLA) Vehicle Licensing Records (VLR) maintained by the Secretary of State for Transport. To the best of my knowledge and belief there are no grounds for believing that the statement in the document produced by computer at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Center (DVLA) is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer; At all times the computer was operating properly, or if not, any respect in which it was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents. Signed: Sharon Baker. DVLC.
 * The fact that you have proved it by observation is the very definition of original research. "the judge at the trial where I was convicted of a criminal offence agreed with me" is hardly a high standard, and I don't understand why you keep pasting bloody DVLA info in. We don't care about the DVLA info. We don't care if your name IS Steven bloody McDermott - we've never disputed that. What we care about is the large amount of useless unencyclopedic dross that you're keeping in your userspace. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If I understand you correctly, this isn't directly linked to work on a Wikipedia article, so why is it here? The guidelines WP:USER say think of [your user page] as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand those with whom they are working.. If it isn't connected with an article (and if it were to be put into main space, I don't think it would last very long), then it shouldn't be on your user page. A sandbox, incidently, is for testing wiki layout and the like, to draft an article - your use of this sandbox does neither, from what I can see. I have already made my opinion known above, but I see nothing in your discussion points that would make me want to change my opinion. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 10:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PhantomSteve : Actually, you have misunderstood me. This IS linked to my work on Wikipedia articles. Including: List of Royal members of the Privy Council; Royal Standard of England; List of James II deserters to William of Orange & etc. See also > (14:04, 16 August) N John de Mohun, 2nd Baron Mohun. (15:00), Order of the Garter. (19:13), N John de Grey, 1st Baron Grey de Rotherfield. (19:31), User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox (w) (00:05, 17 August) N Richard Fitz-Simon. (03:22, 17 August: Deletion by Ironholds). My (Created by me) Mohun, Rotherfield, Garter, and Fitz-simon articles, on 16th-17th, had no prior references in Wikipedia. I cross-referenced my Sandbox X research, then created the articles. As for my use of my sandbox, I first write my research, then I either put it into a Sandbox to test its WP layout, or directly into an article. In confirmation of my choice of procedure, I have just put my current research onto my user page. These are nowhere near complete, but are relevant to Sandbox X. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, be that as it may (and I apologise for my misunderstanding, thanks for clearing it up), you would appear to confirm that this is my current research - again, Wikipedia does not accept Original Research. My opinion still remains that this should be deleted. It will never be an article in its own right, and is original research - both valid reasons for deleting the Sandbox --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidently, earlier you referred to 154m Google references - I'd be curious to know what search string you used on this? stephen dermott returned 1.74 million hits; "stephen dermott" returned 5460, stephen returned about 155 million (but most of those will have nothing to do with the subject you are talking about) and dermott returned about 711 thousand. If there are really so many hits, you should be able to find information at reliable sites - but you haven't in the sandbox. Please, I'm seriously curious - what search string(s) did you use to get 154m hits? --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 14:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just typed stephen dermott into my Google box, it is now 1,090,000. On my new User page, it lists the previous counts for each entry on my last search (last week). As for "my current research", this incomplete research is without references - when I put in the references - it will be complete. The article anthroponomy has the tab - This linguistics article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it - I will be expanding this article, historical case histories etc. Dont you concider that everything everybody types into Wikipedia (User space - without a ref tab) is OR? At what point is research not original? Regards Stephen2nd (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Err.. when it's done by someone else. If I type in "William Murray was born in Perth" and the research was done by C.S. Fifoot in 1932, a noted author, and published by a reputable publishing company, then it's no longer "original" - I haven't worked it out for myself. You working out that you can find your name in the Royal Arms is original research unless you can show me a reputable academic source or similar which clearly states that a) this can be done and b) it's actually something people give a fig about. Ironholds (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To prove something by observation or experiment is actually the definition of Empirical. Definition of original research is that which is unprecedented i.e. without prior reference. The Transcript: 30-10-97. “Proceedings of appeal against conviction and sentence.” Was Published by Barnet Lenton & co. This is no longer original – I read and quoted the text from the publication. PS. YOUR REF "the judge at the trial where I was convicted of a criminal offence agreed with me" is hardly a high standard. I would agree, IF IT WERE TRUE, WHICH IT IS NOT. This was actually an appeal case against a “PARKING OFFENCE by the DVLA”. Stephen2nd (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, @harej 00:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Stephen2nd, have you read the policy on original research? It appears that your definition of original research differs from the one that the wikipedia community has for convenience adopted.  That definition is outlined in the aforementioned policy.  Essentially, if your user page is practically a primary source, then it is almost certainly original research.  Also, I fail to grasp how a parking offense is related to this -- sorry if I missed something.  -- Thin  boy  00  @251, i.e. 05:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone (community) can edit Wikipedia, quote references, cite sources, write an article.


 * The Telegraph, Crown court and Barnet Lentil, created and sold, both these publications.
 * I bought my copy of the Telegraph, and transcript publication booklet, over 12 years ago.
 * I have quoted verifiable references from; both a published newspaper and a court record.
 * Both citing the names of authors; names/cities of publishers; titles/dates of publications:


 * On 24-04-1996. journalist; Tom Utley, interviewed a car driver: Asked what he did for a living, he said: “I do this.” Utley then submitted his investigative report on the incident.
 * This primary source: Questioned by Utley. This secondary source: Answered by driver.
 * The primary source for this journalistic investigation was Mr.Tom Utley on 23-04-1996.
 * The primary source for this journalists publication was the Daily Telegraph 24-04-1996.

Stephen2nd (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On 30-10-97. A Judge asked a defendant, “Wherabouts is the name Stephen Dermott on your flag?” he said: “D-E-R-M-O-T.” The court ordered a written transcript of the case.
 * This primary source: Questioned by Judge. Secondary source answered by the defendant.
 * The primary source for this judicial investigation was Judge McMullan on 30-10-1997.
 * The primary source for this judicial publication was the Crown court & Barnet Lentil co.
 * That's not how primary and secondary sources work. Gigs (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me why quoting these specific - primary and secondary sources - are in breach of WP:Policy?
 * Quite simply: this entire article is Original Research, which is against Wikipedia Policy. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per my reasons above. I've just realised that I hadn't explicitly made my recommendation for what should be done with this page. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You did all the way at the top right? Gigs (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, so I did. Thanks, Gigs! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 14:36, 1 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.