Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Semiotics of the structure

Dear eager gentlemen. Uses the rights of “convicted person” I have the last word. Read your scenario was been useful. Correctly argues Thuvko: ”This is not really material that can be reviewed by mathematicians”. It seems that a meaningful discussion about did not happen. Mainly considered external signs of that from time to time become like a farce. I’m, obviously, at half older than you and it reminded me of the 1950 years when cybernetics was characterized as “capitalistic pseudo-science” and genetics as “scientifically senseless”, and so on. Of course, I do not think that I've invented a “new cybernetics or genetics”, but an otherwise approach to the graphs – yes. Right has also David Epstein about references. Some of the references in my article were for me only confused details. Enough, if I refer only to: 1) a thorough textbook on graph theory (basic information about the graphs), 2) a source of basic knowledge of semiotics, 3) a handbook on the philosophy outlined where the definition of terms used, as well as an apology, and, excuse me, 4) some reference to edition of the author. The only purely mathematical problem here is the proof that the structural “positions“ coincide with the orbits (domains of automorphism). This can be achieved in collaboration with some group theorists. It is of course very difficult, but possible. One approach to this is available.Канеюку (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What you are describing sounds like original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your remark is understandable, but the original (origin, source) was published in 1990 (http://tallinn.ester.ee/record=b1189824~S1* ) and some articles also.Канеюку (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That bibliographic entry seems to be missing some details, like what journal the paper appeared in, and on what pages. In our search, we were unable to find anything published by John-Tagore Tevet in the peer-reviewed literature.  Tevet seems to be the only person to have written about this topic anywhere, and no one seems to be referring to his writings.  Tevet's writings on this topic seem to be primary sources (WP:PSTS), and none of them seems to have been published in what we would consider to be a reliable third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  This makes it original research in our determination.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear. The fact that you did not find anything is true, because this specialty, such as an intersection of graph theory, semiotics and nature-philosophy does not exist. The only one who had himself suggested the possibility of publishing in peer-reviewed was a Qatar Foundation. But it was for a fee, and for me, than Estonian pensioner is not suitable. I do not climb up somewhere. I probe the environment. An order must be everywhere, and also the Brussels prescriptions on the radius of curvature of the banana are maybe necessary. Be “a single one structure-semiotican in the world” is also interesting.Канеюку (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If nobody but you and some of your friends is interested in it, then we don't cover it in Wikipedia. That would apply even if it were published in a peer-reviewed journal. That you can't even find someone willing to review it only matters as a strong indication that it may in addition be scientifically worthless, thus a second reason for not covering it. For comparison, my own peer-reviewed publications are limited only by how much I actually get around to submitting, as I have never had a rejection in peer review and don't anticipate ever getting one. Yet it would not occur to me that Wikipedia should have an article on my work. (As opposed to things that I am interested in and that several dozen people are publishing on, such as thorn-forking. And even that article hasn't been written yet because it is only of marginal importance.) Hans Adler 17:34, 1 December 2011(UTC)


 * At first I take Wikipedia for a more open-lexicon, where no exist too strict censorship, and where can be get a greater variety of information. As well I had ganz vergessen the being of bibliometry. I did not know that the articles (of Proc. Estonian Acad. Sci etc) must be registered by itself. Apparently I have to do it afterwards. With so-called self-publications of my research group (S.E.R.R.) I do not consider. Nothing more nothing than to continue working.Канеюку (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)