Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Victor Kosko

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Victor Kosko


WP:NOTWEBHOST – user has been adding fringe ideas/OR to his user page after they're generally deleted from various article talk pages. I notified them about this here. Their reply and my followup are here. I said I'd tag as U5, but I'm taking to MfD instead just to be on the safe side with respect to the bit about no other edits outside of user space. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 22:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to deacon vorbis

None of your links to policy apply to talk pages, applying them that way is distortion. I put the set theory material in articles in response to them being deleted from talk pages. Wikipedia's policy is not designed for short perfect mathematical proofs or any proof. The right brothers would have violated Wikipedia's policy if posting after flying at an air show. Poliy is not absolute, so verifiability changes and ignore all rules applies. I checked policy and speady deletion would not have been permitted. Your current complaints of fringe: all points of view etc. that is Wikipedia does not exclude the minority which is the case with set theory articles and talk, and I might add creation. Pov: as I wrote my proofs are better than for example Zenkin or wildberger, and as I wrote when such material is put in by others it gets deleted or not edited from the talk pages. If you did give me.permision as I wrote to edit the articles thus in agreement with Wikipedia policy it would be worse! Victor Kosko (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

General

I'll give you an example what your doing to me. Your discouraging me from editing which is against Wikipedia's policy. So say I put in Wikipedia that in Genesis 1:1 in the original primative Hebrew 'In the beginning' is "in beginning" the 'the' is conspicuously absent being in hebrew all other occurances of 'in…beginning' are all 'in the beginning'. Further since primitive Hebrew is dismissive, dismissing all vowels, spaces, punctuation except period(':'), it should be "in a beginning" as verified also by physical evidence!!! What if this where deleted for lack of verifiability by quote. But it can be verified by writing a program search and is verified by astrophysics. If you where to read the alternative those are flat-earth-y,. But if I put in talk my transaction of Genesis 1:1 'in beginning created God(s) (singular-plural) the atmospheres and the land.', (that is the first chapter of the book Genesis 1 plus a little of 2, thus an introduction. That would still be appropriate for talk if I explained why. Again a creationist could delete it by distorting policy. So I contribute nothing. Victor Kosko (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. there is extensive discussion in multiple sources about the proper translation of this verse, & it's already discussed in WP. This amateur presentation is not encyclopedic content.  DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The strongest argument against this page is made by the author himself, who is arguing for his "right" to publish what appears to be original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - As original research, and the author's own arguments do not help him. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * comment gen 1 was a hypothetical, and the wp article should be edited as or despite the reference. It's a bad reference and contradicts the other scholar's analysis per later added vowel marks.  I said I put the arguments in articles after they where deleted from talk where they belong because of them being deleted from talk as   supposedly not being editorial advice.  For example I checked and wp does not include Cantor's etc opinion that infinities are not numbers per peano axioms but something else, which I translate "numbers".  That's deception.  Do you not believe Cantor. And why would I use others  arguments if they are interested, to obey a non absolute wp policy.  Victor Kosko (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2018 (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.