User talk:Dranonymous2000

AfC notification: Draft:Meyer's (Linguistic ) Law has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Meyer's (Linguistic ) Law. Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I am very new to this and not super sure I know how to navigate ( any of it !!!!). Much less decorum and politics ( office politics). I sort of made a splash earlier. And maybe made one enemy? Frenemy? I am skirting the one rule ( "don't write about yourself" rule). But i have been several selves these last 20 years and I plan on moving on to being a different self. I need to leave a few thoughts behind. In a handy reference spot. But, This one hobby horse aside .... I will pop on and edit a few articles a month. Perfectly dispassionate. But I don't think I want to fight too much about Meyers ( Linguistic) Law and such. The internet us often unkind to experts. And Wikipedia is not where it gets argued. But the thing I said, IRL, WAS said. Clearly and loud. And it's non trivial. And must be a part of the conversation. And is logically necessary to the conversation in academia.

The internet can be unkind. And experts piled on top of experts. So I'll edit things that are somewhat adjacent to my expertise. Not directly within it ( and thus subject to my potential bias).

This all too much info for a reply to you? I dunno? Etiquette? I'm a newbie ! 

Does everybody sees this message? Maybe. I don't care. I guess?

But I will stay stubborn about Meyer's (Linguistic) Law and stay diligent about the peripheral / articles I edit. Try to do several per month and add to objectivity and clarity.

I like to help the project. But that one hobby horse ... I must have !

Motivation. You see. Otherwise? Why help others espouse their ideas? If no one will recognize mine? Seems unfair?

Thank you. For one vote of confidence ... At least !

(Oh wait? I spoke too soon? I should read the comment? Perhaps you "savaged" me? Let's hope not. Now? How to find the comments ... Yuck I get all turned around in these pages?)

Well. Thanks anyway. I am sure you've suggested "mainline" publication. Dranonymous2000 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Boy? The format is all messed up? I guess I shouldn't use parentheses or page break or return carriage return enters? Cuz it thinks I mean code? Dranonymous2000 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that you're new here and don't understand the rules. They can be very complicated. But if you are Randall Meyer, as some of your posts would indicate, it's also clear that you are something of a gadfly and like to upset the apple cart. That's an admirable quality in some spheres: some apple carts need to be upset. But Wikipedia is not the place to do it. If you have some ideas that you just absolutely feel need to be expressed, but can't find a place to express them, may I suggest the list of alternative outlets: websites that will be glad to host your thoughts. Good luck! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I have seen the "gadfly" typology in the rules.

Years ago. I read the rules years ago. That's why you are just about last on my list of places to "publish".

If you look at copyright law, an utterance is copyright-able.

I could easily argue I have published , I have offered it up for peer review, but the peers refused to review it.

And your page is STILL WRONG. Some 20-odd years later.

So unless you personally pass it along to Dawkins, Dennett or Gould ( Darwin rest his sou---ahem--bones and atoms ...) I am just as likely to call you a troll as you might be to call me a gadfly. Probably neither justifiable ...or polite.

I am actually a very pleasant person. Very passionate about ideas and their PROPER use.

Like Daniel Dennett says ... Yes I'll still quote him even though i am suing him... "This is like intellectual tennis without nets. Let's have some rules that we can agree upon."

It appears as though I am peerless. But not for lack of stooping. And inviting conversation. And interchange of ideas. And summation. And collation.

So do yourself and Wikipedia a favor.

Leave my edits in. Or the encyclopedia will have wrong information.

All because academia was too lazy to read my work.

And you were concerned about appearances. Dranonymous2000 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Original research

You may not publish original research on Wikipedia. If you can't get a legitimate academic journal to publish your theories, Wikipedia is not the place to try to do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't tried a "legitimate" journal.

I'm not allowed to go to graduate school.

No reason.

No explantation.

Just not allowed.

So? Sue?

It is a fact I have sued.

It is a fact that nobody responds.

But is THAT legal?

We must respond to one another? Mustn't we?

Isn't that civilized? Dranonymous2000 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Randall K. Meyer moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Randall K. Meyer, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BrutBrother (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Meyer's Standard Strong Artificial Intelligence Directories moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Meyer's Standard Strong Artificial Intelligence Directories, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Meyer's (Linguistic) Law

The article Meyer's (Linguistic) Law has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOR This article appears to be the author's attempt to use Wikipedia to publish his otherwise unpublished theories.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

No don't delete it.

I hope I saved a backup?

If not.

I can write it again from me.ory.

But it is annoying to live as "Ein Hungerkunstler".

Every 40 days ... Starting over from scratch ... Dranonymous2000 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello, I'm WikiDan61. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Hardy–Weinberg principle have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please read WP:NPA and do not add personal attacks against other editors into articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Dan.

But I've tried to sue academia (various persons and institutions) a few times for their libelous and slanderous censorship of me.

So I know those laws have little "bite" to them.

Daniel Dennett --one of the persons you feel I have libelled or slandered--has actively ducked service of my U.S. civil rights lawsuit. The case is pending in.D. District court, Seattle (Western).

For your reference the case number is 2:22-CV-0232-JHC ( JHC or RSM)

So let's not pretend this is something other than it is.

I am an exiled American academ8c. That might not sit well with you. But 7ts the truth.

Would you like to see my Canadian paper trail? I have numbers here too !!!!

On the plus side of things, you have inspired some morning creativity ...

Enjoy it.... If you know how?

" If an academician pontificates in the wilderness, and there is no one there to publish him, does he bother to cite Franz Kafka's "A Hunger Artist" in his bibliography?

"

Dranonymous2000 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

U.S. District Court .... Typo Dranonymous2000 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a discussion about your editing ongoing at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your attempts to publish original research. The thread is User:Dranonymous2000 is WP:NOTHERE. The discussion is about the topic original research]. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok.

How do I respond? And defend myself?

I wrote a nice long, well reasoned response. But pushed the send button and it told me no. So? Silenced?

Is it to be summary academic execution all over again?

There are SIX assumptions that must be made for the Hardy-Weinberg-Meyer Equilibrium to remain in stasis ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves

Let me assure you. I have had worse from better than you.

( Do any of you "thought police" appreciate the irony of "thought policing" an article that is LITERALLY describing the mechanism of "thought policing"? Your editorial minds should love that irony; irony, a literary device? Or am I the ONLY one with a sense of humor about my impending demise and oblivion?) Dranonymous2000 (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia as it's quite clear you're not here to improve the project. I cannot tell if you're here to simply promote yourself, or if everything is a complete hoax ("invented the concept one night in a Holiday Inn while waiting for political asylum" is is just one example.) Either way your edits are not suitable for an encyclopaedia, your theories all fail WP:RS and none of the above reasons you're here is compatible with the project. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your theories. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #59385

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)