DeQuinceyMalden

Your submission at Articles for creation: Neoteric Evolutionary Theory has been accepted

Neoteric Evolutionary Theory, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Neoteric_evolutionary_theory

The article Neoteric_evolutionary_theory has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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.

August 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi DeQuinceyMalden! You created a thread called Neoteric Evolution at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Neoteric evolutionary theory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neoteric evolutionary theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neoteric evolutionary theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. General Ization ^Talk 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If a) you don't participate in the above discussion, and b) you come back in another three months and ask again to have this article undeleted, it ain't gonna fly this time. This is essentially your final opportunity to explain why the article should stay at Wikipedia. Unless you're content to have it deleted forever, now would be the time to discuss it. General Ization ^Talk 03:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please make your comments at the page where the discussion is taking place, which is linked in the notice above, not on my Talk page, where the comments recently left by an IP will be seen by no one but me. General Ization ^Talk 17:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi DeQuinceyMalden! You created a thread called Neoteric Evolutionary Theory at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Neoteric Evolutionary Theory - any new idea is original by definition...so,delete it?

This piece was mistakenly sent to a talk page- Perhaps it now finds the right spot in an attempt to defend its claim to possible inclusion. This claim is based on the admission that no original research is included.

                                             Neoteric EvoutionaryTheory.

This summation of a subject covered by numerous papers which have appeared over several years. published in journals elsewhere. Like the curmudgeons of Christianity who expressed their wrath at the notion of natural selection (though they didn’t resort to swearing as these Wikipedia ‘invigilators’ do), this proposal brings together original research by others that points to a conclusion, not terribly hard to arrive at, that humans are better classified by evidence of consciousness; specifically recall.

Wikipedia criteria are employed as justification for submission:
          "... a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."
I insert this quotation from Wikipedia guidelines to illustrate an important point; many researchers (in many other fields, too, but in this case anthropology) find their speciality links to others only if they are closely related but lack, from the point of an overview, coherence when it comes to a question of significance. Often, this only comes when viewed from 'the outside'. The point of my submission is to provide this overview; to demonstrate a view of palaeoanthropology that is missed because of fragmentation; that in fact a 'truth' of some kind is "staring us in the face". This 'truth' was, ironically, first expressed by Darwin - hence my reference to his entry in Notebook 'M' - that recall is the basis for all consciousness, that this is what distinguishes human behaviour from that of other species. Further, that specialist studies of epochs of human evolution throw up different skeletal evidence ( from actually very few sources) mostly skull fragments. This has in turn led to nomenclature for hominines, which divides, or clouds, rather than relates or clarifies, the similarities between hominids types. One fact is very apparent: that behaviour identifies the human rather than fossilised remains, that very specific evidence - tool use - defines the human conclusively. This has been apparent for a long time; one could list the different names for skull types and teeth, enshrined (in Wikipedia, for example) as denoting proto-humans - some no doubt correct, others extremely doubtful. My supposition, and this is all, is that humans can be grouped, and defined, as being or not being human by artefacts alone and (thereby) by behaviour. Archaeologists were surprised, astonished, puzzled by the artefacts attributed to Floresiensis. These were tiny individuals, around one metre in stature, producing elegant and sophisticated tools. This removes at last the notion that, to be human, you have to have a large head and brain capacity.
Palaeoanthropology is rocked by one truth after another and should, by now, be used to reassessing fundamental assumptions. Discoveries are now coming thick and fast; Sonia Harmand's discoveries pushes humans tool-making ability (thereby implicitly acknowledging a much older date for consciousness) back towards 3.3 million years. Etymological work demonstrates that, before we get around to tools made of finely worked flint, humans produced finely worked baskets, wooden and bone utensils, leather/hide, woven fibres and bamboo fish traps and hundreds of useful objects that pre-date flint, no doubt by millions of years. 

These conclusions are supported by Prof. Lorenzo Magnani's work (University of Pavia; abductive reasoning) demonstrating that what we do is what we've always done, even if millions of years of sun, rain and microbes mean no trace remains but flint survives. All the clothes and fish-traps, wooden spears and baskets leave no trace. Does that mean they didn't exist? So, contrary to conclusions generally held, humans have a history (defined by consciousness) that predates all archaeological records. Perhaps we go back ten to fifteen million years or more. If this is not 'proven' but abductive, obviously it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia but deleted - and immediately. But, as a 'summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject' I think it stands as a valuable contribution. Think of it this way; if Wikipedia and all its entries were enshrined now, as the definitive assembly of all human knowledge (correct and unassailable as assumed by its arrogant and vulgar champions) how would it be received even ten years from now? There is no 'original research' here. Already the reports are 'old' by scientific standards. This is an article based on a collection of reports, together with a reasoned overview. Sorry to have frightened Wikipedia stalwarts with the name....and I object to the use of the word ‘Bollocks’ from a group purporting to be civilised and sufficiently erudite (supposedly) to pass judgement on the efforts of others attempting to shed light on a subject insufficiently covered in its pages. Ne2A00:23C5:7E1:C500:8DE3:5255:ECF:2D2talkDeQuinceyMalden (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If you object to the use of the word bollocks then I fear that you didn't even understand what some of the other comments were saying because they were far more devastating to your "theory" than my casual use of a very mild profanity. I also said that this is a hoax. I'd have thought that you would object more to that.

Anyway, you seem to want to have your say everywhere except the right place. That is the AfD itself. You have clearly read it. You clearly know where it is. Why not post your screed there? It won't do you any good but that is the venue in which you have the right to be heard if you want to be.

As regards your "theory". I suggest that you get a blog and publish it there. You can try to interest scientific journals in it too. You won't get published in anything reputable but some others will print anything for a fee, even complete and utter bollocks. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Neoteric Evolutionary theory

Moved from User talk:General Ization

 – For documentation purposes, in case this editor proposes more time-wasting in the future. General Ization ^Talk 14:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced defense of an article at AfD

"...but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." I insert this quotation from Wikipediqa guidelines to illustrate an important point; many researchers (in many other fields, too, but in this case anthropology) find their speciality links to others only if they are closely related but lack, from the point of an overview, coherence when it comes to a question of significance. Oftenn, this only comes when view from 'the outside'. The point of my submission is to provide this overview; to demonstrate a view of paleoanthropology that is missed because of fragmentation; that in fact a 'truth' of some kind is "staring us in the face". This 'truth' was, ironically, first expressed by Darwin - hence my reference to his entry in Notebook 'M' - that recall is the basis for all consciousness, that this is what distinguishes human berhaviour from that of other species. Further, that specialist studies of epochs of human evolution throw up different skeletal evidence ( from actually very few sources) mostly skull fragments. This has in turn led to nomencalture for hominins which divides or clouds, rather than relates or clarifies, the similarities between hominids types. One fact is very apparent: that behaviour identifies the human rather than fossilised remains, that very specific evedince - tool use - defines the human conclusively. This has been apparent for a long time; one could list the different names for skull types and teeth, enshrined (in Wikipedia, for example) as denoting proto-humans - some no doubt correct, others extrmely doubtful. My supposition, and this is all, is that humans can be grouped,and defined, as being or not being humanby artefacts alone and (thereby) by behaviour. Archeologists were surprised, astonished, puzzled by the artefacts attributed to Floresiensis. These were tiny individuals, around one metre in stature, producing elegant and sophisticated tools. This removes at last the notion that, to be human, you have to have a large head and brain capacity. Paleaoanthropology is rocked by one truth after another and should, by now, be used to reassessing fundamental assumtions. Discoveries are now coming thick and fast; Sonia Harmand's discoveries pushes humans tool-making ability (thereby implicitly acknowledging a much older date for consciousness) back towards 3.3 million years. Etymological work demonstrates that, before we get around to tools made of finely worked flint, humans produced finely worked baskets, wooden and bone utensils, leather/hide, woven fibres and bamboo fish traps and hundreds of uswful objects that pre-date flint, no doubt by millions of years. These conclusionsare supported by Prof. Lorenzon Magnani's work (University of Pavi; abductive reasoning) demonstrating that what we do is what we've always done, even if millions of years of sun, rain and microbes mean no trace remains but flint survives. All the clothes and fisht-raps, wooden sprears and baskets leaft no trace. Does that mean they didn't exist? So, contrary to conclusions generally held, humans have a history (defined by consciousness) that predates all archeaological records. Perhaps we go back ten to fifteen million years or more. If this is not 'proven' but abductive, obviously it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia but deleted - and immediately. But, as a 'summary of accepted knowedge regarding its subject' I think it stands as a valuable contribution. Think of it this way; if Wikipedia and all its entries were enshrined now, as the definitve assembly of all human knowledge ( correct and unassailable) how would it be received even ten years from now? There is no 'original research' here. Already the reports are 'old' by scientific standards. This is a collection of reports, together with a reasoned overview. Sorry to have frightened Wikipediea stalwarts with the name 'Neoteric'.2A00:23C5:7E1:C500:8DE3:5255:ECF:2D2 (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

IP, this doesn't belong on my Talk page, where it accomplishes absolutely nothing. If anywhere, it belongs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neoteric evolutionary theory. Also, assuming that you are the author of that article on whose Talk page I left a message last night, please log in before making your comments so that this will be clear to other editors and admins reading that page. General Ization ^Talk 17:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I see my gently ironic agreement to delete has been seized upon with some alacrity ! DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@DeQuinceyMalden: We take editors at their word here; irony and sarcasm cannot be readily assumed from characters on a page. I repeatedly encouraged you to participate in the discussion at the AfD page, and you (apparently) refused to do so. I copied your comments to that page, so they would at least be preserved with the records of the discussion for future review. In any case, the unanimous opinion of other editors there was that the article should be deleted, so your "ironic" agreement was really not a factor in the outcome. General Ization ^Talk 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@DeQuinceyMalden: By the way, you caused at least 10 other editors to waste their time on what they ultimately regarded as foolishness (and I tend to agree); the fact that they did not waste any more time on it, when you refused to participate at all in the defined process for these kind of decisions on Wikipedia, should not surprise you. While you may have no respect for other editors here, they at least have self-respect and know the value of their time. General Ization ^Talk 13:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I realise as an Editor you have to stand up for others, also providing their valuable time. Honestly, for an 'outsider', the experience is one of straying onto the hostile turf of some oddly arcane gang; the peculiar monikers, the strident language, the beleaguered air of the gang leader trying to control unruly subordinates, the tatty language and resentful attitude of the initiated to the idea of something or (especially) someone 'new'.

Though I've admired Wikipedia and supported it, my clumsy attempt at closer participation reveals labyrinthine complexity; the converts understand it, but it seems awash with needless complexity and clunky design (to an 'average' outsider). As one established editor puts it (newcomers failing to follow 'the rules'): "We've had this problem for years and I'm tired of having to go through it over and over again" (or words to that effect). Have you ever thought of changing it, or would that mean a diminution of influence and control?

So one notices, and is distracted by, the air of confusion and preoccupation with 'gang ritual'; the superciliious request for new-comers to excercise politeness and tolerance, instantly undermined by the vulgarity and bullying fromthe 'gang' members themselves. Yes - it's 'their turf', new voices are definitely unwelcome, especially if the new voice is 'doesn't fit'.

Odd formulas, complex commands and bizarre site-layout isn't there to help; the initiated definitely enjoy the discomfiture of the uninitiated's failure to navigate through a maze of acronyms, initials, formulas, and layers of pages, plus tortuous procedures solely to make sure any new-bug is humiliated. The similarity to a playground or street gang is uncanny; like mysterious handshakes indulged in with deadly seriousness. The stranger has to hide his smile.

Thr ruituals of wikipedians are fathomable,I suppose, but straying onto such alien turf is probably not worth the bother. But then, my encounter with rudeness, vulgarity and hostility might be clouding my judgement.DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@DeQuinceyMalden: Thanks for the essay. Since, despite your loquaciousness, you seem to be incapable of following direct, simple and clear instructions written in English (see your Talk page for multiple examples), I'm not surprised you're having trouble. That capability is indeed a requirement here, and that is unlikely to change to accommodate you. Good day. General Ization ^Talk 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)