82.7.40.7 (talk) |
Mikemahalo (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
SEcondly it does make money for the rights owner. So what. I cannot change that. But I can remind everyone that EMPIRICAL SCIENCE is legally public, and wherever Human Design claims to be empirical, it cannot also claim copyright. If there is also evidence that it is empirical, and I have found that over and over and over for the past 7 years, then, the empirical nature is PUBLIC and not itself subject to license fees. I want the empiricism to be clear, is it is it not, I think it is. |
SEcondly it does make money for the rights owner. So what. I cannot change that. But I can remind everyone that EMPIRICAL SCIENCE is legally public, and wherever Human Design claims to be empirical, it cannot also claim copyright. If there is also evidence that it is empirical, and I have found that over and over and over for the past 7 years, then, the empirical nature is PUBLIC and not itself subject to license fees. I want the empiricism to be clear, is it is it not, I think it is. |
||
Clearly Human Design is unlike anything that every existed before, and you cannot dismiss it |
Clearly Human Design is unlike anything that every existed before, and you cannot dismiss it any more. |
||
[[User:Mikemahalo|Mikemahalo]] ([[User talk:Mikemahalo|talk]]) 10:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Enough words, I say, undelete the original article and contact me with specific problems, if there is no obvious way to correct faults in that original, I can take each challenge one by one and I am motivated to be part of taking HD from private and I have to say dubious, inaccurate, ownership into the pulic domain now. |
|||
Please be gentle with any messages to me, I am new here, I am not a wiki geek, I am just concerned primarily on this specific omission from wiki [[User:Mikemahalo|Mikemahalo]] ([[User talk:Mikemahalo|talk]]) 10:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Reading your talk page comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fabrictramp&diff=prev&oldid=353309764 here], you state "The lack of external references will continue..." and your above comment that there is nowhere to look for independant assesments - that means it's unsuitable for a wikipedia article. Please see [[WP:NOR|no original research]] and [[WP:NOT#OR|wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought]]. All the material in wikipedia should be primarily based on [[WP:RS|reliable]] secondary sources. Wikipedia also has some inclusion crtieria most normally "notability". It doesn't matter if this fits in a given box or not, the criteria are more objective that wikipedia editors just deciding, the [[WP:GNG|general notability guide]] is simply that the rest of the world at large cares enough about it to write about it in a non-trivial manner in independant third party reliable sources, which again if you've no sources this fails. --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] ([[User talk:82.7.40.7|talk]]) 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
: Reading your talk page comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fabrictramp&diff=prev&oldid=353309764 here], you state "The lack of external references will continue..." and your above comment that there is nowhere to look for independant assesments - that means it's unsuitable for a wikipedia article. Please see [[WP:NOR|no original research]] and [[WP:NOT#OR|wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought]]. All the material in wikipedia should be primarily based on [[WP:RS|reliable]] secondary sources. Wikipedia also has some inclusion crtieria most normally "notability". It doesn't matter if this fits in a given box or not, the criteria are more objective that wikipedia editors just deciding, the [[WP:GNG|general notability guide]] is simply that the rest of the world at large cares enough about it to write about it in a non-trivial manner in independant third party reliable sources, which again if you've no sources this fails. --[[Special:Contributions/82.7.40.7|82.7.40.7]] ([[User talk:82.7.40.7|talk]]) 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:02, 5 April 2010
5 April 2010
Human Design System
- Human Design System (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
deleted without understanding the topic, and false reasons and reasoning in the deletion discussion from lack of awareness or knowledge of the topic
Although I do see the article on Human DEsign System had some problems, my point is that wiki does need to have some entry on this topic .
There are many many people in the world today interested in Human Design and nowhere to look for INDEPENDENT assessments of what it actually is.
I agree with some of the criticism, it is not a "system", and today the topic is more often called Human Design, nobody bothers with the three words Human Design System. But there is a further problem, if you define "system" so narrowly that this is not such a thing, what word is there for Human Design. Ah, from that perspective, there is no alternative word, it is loosely a system BECAUSE there is no more suitable word. It is something we never quite had to label before, ok.
SEcondly it does make money for the rights owner. So what. I cannot change that. But I can remind everyone that EMPIRICAL SCIENCE is legally public, and wherever Human Design claims to be empirical, it cannot also claim copyright. If there is also evidence that it is empirical, and I have found that over and over and over for the past 7 years, then, the empirical nature is PUBLIC and not itself subject to license fees. I want the empiricism to be clear, is it is it not, I think it is.
Clearly Human Design is unlike anything that every existed before, and you cannot dismiss it any more.
Mikemahalo (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reading your talk page comment here, you state "The lack of external references will continue..." and your above comment that there is nowhere to look for independant assesments - that means it's unsuitable for a wikipedia article. Please see no original research and wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. All the material in wikipedia should be primarily based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia also has some inclusion crtieria most normally "notability". It doesn't matter if this fits in a given box or not, the criteria are more objective that wikipedia editors just deciding, the general notability guide is simply that the rest of the world at large cares enough about it to write about it in a non-trivial manner in independant third party reliable sources, which again if you've no sources this fails. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)