The theory of biocommunication based on three leveled semiotics is an original approach which - in contrast to bioinformatics, biolinguistics, biosemiotics and semiotics - integrates pragmatic turn results. Therefore biocommunication is inherently interconnected with pragmatics. This means biocommunicative empirical investigations on bacteria, plants, animals (e.g. bees, corals), fungi focus on real live scenarios in which context determines meaning functions of signals. At the present time this concept has no counter concept in biology and is an innovative approach. Some "mind police" eliminates all works that I wrote and published in serious scientific journals and publishing houses of various wikipedia sites. But truth will hold on... Ynaztiw (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- It was actually me, not JamesBWatson who removed all the references to your own work that you had added. This was because it looks to me (and others agree) that your aim here is to promote your works, against the best interests of the project as a whole. As you say yourself, your work is "an innovative approach" but wikipedia is not the place to gain acceptance for your theories (no offence intended)
- >>>This is not correct: My works are published in international peer-reviewd journals as well as publishing houses such as Springer or New York Academy of Sciences. - ynaztiw-
- >>>Then please supply cites to those sources, demonstrating the relevance to the specific topic within those references. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
. We aren't trying to suppress thoughts in an Orwellian manner, simply trying to stop you promoting yourself. I hope this clears this up somewhat. Per our civility policy you may wish to retract some of your comments about JamesBWatson. SmartSE (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC).
>>>This is not correct: As you are blocking all of my scientific articles you try to suppress important information for young students by confusing information to various fields of biology with self promotion. Additionally you suppress also content ("Biocommunication and Pragmatics"), i.e. pragmtic turn thinking which attacs mechanistical, reductionistic thoughts of second half of the 20th century. It is correct that this is not "Orwellian" but the more "Brave New World"-Behavior described brilliantly by Aldous Huxley.
In the last 25 years I developed the theory of communivative nature (Life: The Communicative Structure, 2000) or as it is called theory of biocommunication. Meanwhile it is applied to biological investigations of bacteria, archaea, viruses, plants, fungi, animals such as bees and corals and helpfull in investigations on genes, epigenetic imprinting, non-coding RNAs, gene regulation, genome formatting, telomeres, telomerases etc. The only available book on Biocommunication and Natural Genome Editing has been published peer-reviewed in Springer Science Media in 2010 and deals with all these fields of research. I integrated this publication to Wikipedia sites to give information to students and interested persons. This is not a question of acceptance of theories. Now this book and several other items I added in an objective and neutral way has been removed from biocommunication- Wikipedia page. This seems curious. You stated, that the insertion of this book to various sites is a kind of refspam and doesn’t have any relevance to the topics of these pages. This is not correct. If you would have read this books they will see that all is correct. But I doubt that you can change your belief states even if rational arguments are available. So this great idea of wikipedia the „free“ encylopedia turnes more and more into „brave new world“ and mind police.
This is an encyclopedia, which records subjects which have gained review and independant criticism from other reliable parties. Your theories have not gained the sufficient acknowledgement within the area's to which they apply for them to be given notice in such articles. Since they do not reach that criteria, which applies to all subjects, they cannot be used. It is nothing to do with withholding truth, but being able to refer to an august authority as a means of confirming the notability of the subject. That is only reason that the project has for disallowing you to reference your own work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You posted that your criteria to block the postings of my articles have not gained sufficient acknowledgement within the area to which they apply. How to you know this and how do you evaluate this? All of these articles are peer reviewed in scientific journals and book publishers, reworked and finally accepted. So they reach this critera very well. But as it seems you have some problems with innovative thoughts that are introduced to the "free" encyclopedia, as it seems that you have problems with "Freedom". Your blocking weapon seems to be the only relevant action you are competent. Is this true? --- ynaztiw---
- Per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is your responsibility to provide the reliable, third party sources that reference your work and specifically in relation to the topic in which you wish to include it. Previously when you have included references to your theories you have been asked to provide Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and when you did not that content was removed - and then you simply replaced the reverted edits. You have been and will be again blocked for disruption, in that you will not comply with the projects requirements for inclusion of content which references your theories; you are not blocked because of the theories, but your disruptive inclusion of them without the required evidence of their relevance to the article subject. Lastly, this is an encyclopedia which records established knowledge upon a subject - and is not a vehicle for "innovative thought" or "new theory". Your assumptions to the purpose of this project are in error. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC) (from my talkpage response).
Yes I agree with you. My assumptions to the purpose of wikipedia were in error. ---ynaztiw---
- One wonders why you decline to provide supporting sources for your edits; whether you will not, for whatever reason, or that you cannot? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You have email
editI will watch this page, although you may wish to write to mine or email me by return. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
October 2010
edit
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
If you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. You have had plenty of warnings about this on the talk pages of IPs you have used, in the relevant ANI discussion, etc, and do not need more warnings. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Ynaztiw. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)