@[[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]] Where, among the various uses of the term of: "research" ''over there'' did anyone ever say what you are saying, now, and for the first time, here? * Here (your usage)... https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion "This isn't research" Versus... * There (their usage)... https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Energy_does_not_Exist&diff=4208966&oldid=4208936 "This is original research of the most '''[[wikt:egregious|]]''' kind trying to pretend that the laws of physics are a fantasy. It doesn't belong here." * And, there... https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion#Free_Energy_does_not_Exist "This is outside the scope of Wikibooks which, while more tolerant of original research than Wikipedia, does not accept out-and-out made-up-at-school stuff like this." * My usage... "Six years of independent research does not amount to made-up-at-school stuff." * Their usage... "You've made the point yourself "Six years of independent research". This is therefore Original Research, out of scope for Wikibooks..." "Even if what you are writing is TRUE the fact that you yourself did the research and it isn't part of accept science" ['''ergo, egregious'''] "= it is out of scope and will be deleted." * My usage... " ... Is this Original Research? You can bet that it is!" * Their usage... "Would it have been simpler just to say "this is original research on power simulation games"?" * My usage... "But it's more than a mere game since, by posting it, and researching it (online), I bump into people whose experiments may help me understand." * Their usage... "Changed vote - see below I think I vote to '''delete''', because of [[b:WB:NOR|]]. You said it yourself twice: it was your own research, and there are no reliable (non-primary, and non-original-research) sources for it. If you want to post it, post it somewhere that accepts original research. That's my opinion, and I hope you consider it." "[[b:WB:NOR|Read that link]]. OR seems to be accepted at Wikiversity - "Wikibooks also allows instructional guides, but that resource doesn't allow original research" - which indicates OR is allowed there." #[[b:WB:NOR|'''Primary research''']] — Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research. Examples of things not allowed on Wikibooks include proposing new theories and solutions, presenting original ideas, defining new terms, and coining new words. In short, primary research should be published elsewhere, such as a peer-reviewed journal, or our sister project [[v:Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?#Wikiversity for researching|Wikiversity]]. #[[v:Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?#Wikiversity for researching|Wikiversity is the place for original research]], including primary or secondary research. This includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations. Ethical guidelines must adhere, see [[Wikiversity:Research ethics]]. Pages with original research should be marked with the [[Template:Original research|original research]] or [[Template:research project|research project]] templates. * My usage... "Help me to understand this concept of: "primary research"." "...how many primary sources of research does it take for each of them to be considered secondary?" * Their usage... "This is how I understand it" ... "You research something" ... "But your case seems to be able to just post it on a wiki that allows ''original-research''-that-is-not-outright-false. That would be Wikiversity."
Among all of these dozens of examples, I would suggest that [[User:MarcGarver|MarcGarver]] said it best by using the word, ''“'''[[wikt:egregious|]]'''”: reflecting the positive connotations of “standing out from the flock”.'' I believe he used this choice of adjective because these wikis are comprised of a community of editors who, if they can't agree on anything, have decided to delete whatever they cannot collectively contribute (to) since its tolerance would constitute a blockade (of sorts) and, thus, a lack of ''their collective accessibility.'' This would be a contradiction of their desire and intention to participate. Hence, ''“[[wikt:egregious|]]”'' is the operational word, '''here'''. Nothing else matters. ''Nor does it matter that '''this problem is not my fault!''''' Yet, because I attempt to make-up for whatever discrepancy of education may have occurred from our collective sources of learning by ''providing original research of my own,'' I am blamed for somebody else's problem '''merely because I am trying to fix it!''' ''Go back to sleep, or else accept me. '''This is not my choice. This is yours.''''' I cannot change my “skin” (my psychological profile) any more than anyone else can (apparently). It'll probably take a miracle, otherwise. I am not a miracle worker despite ''my egregious mannerisms''.
@[[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]] Where, among the various uses of the term of: "research" ''over there'' did anyone ever say what you are saying, now, and for the first time, here? * Here (your usage)... https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion "This isn't research" Versus... * There (their usage)... https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Energy_does_not_Exist&diff=4208966&oldid=4208936 "This is original research of the most '''[[wikt:egregious|]]''' kind trying to pretend that the laws of physics are a fantasy. It doesn't belong here." * And, there... https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion#Free_Energy_does_not_Exist "This is outside the scope of Wikibooks which, while more tolerant of original research than Wikipedia, does not accept out-and-out made-up-at-school stuff like this." * My usage... "Six years of independent research does not amount to made-up-at-school stuff." * Their usage... "You've made the point yourself "Six years of independent research". This is therefore Original Research, out of scope for Wikibooks..." "Even if what you are writing is TRUE the fact that you yourself did the research and it isn't part of accept science" ['''ergo, egregious'''] "= it is out of scope and will be deleted." * My usage... " ... Is this Original Research? You can bet that it is!" * Their usage... "Would it have been simpler just to say "this is original research on power simulation games"?" * My usage... "But it's more than a mere game since, by posting it, and researching it (online), I bump into people whose experiments may help me understand." * Their usage... "Changed vote - see below I think I vote to '''delete''', because of [[b:WB:NOR|]]. You said it yourself twice: it was your own research, and there are no reliable (non-primary, and non-original-research) sources for it. If you want to post it, post it somewhere that accepts original research. That's my opinion, and I hope you consider it." "[[b:WB:NOR|Read that link]]. OR seems to be accepted at Wikiversity - "Wikibooks also allows instructional guides, but that resource doesn't allow original research" - which indicates OR is allowed there." #[[b:WB:NOR|'''Primary research''']] — Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research. Examples of things not allowed on Wikibooks include proposing new theories and solutions, presenting original ideas, defining new terms, and coining new words. In short, primary research should be published elsewhere, such as a peer-reviewed journal, or our sister project [[v:Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?#Wikiversity for researching|Wikiversity]]. #[[v:Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?#Wikiversity for researching|Wikiversity is the place for original research]], including primary or secondary research. This includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations. Ethical guidelines must adhere, see [[Wikiversity:Research ethics]]. Pages with original research should be marked with the [[Template:Original research|original research]] or [[Template:research project|research project]] templates. * My usage... "Help me to understand this concept of: "primary research"." "...how many primary sources of research does it take for each of them to be considered secondary?" * Their usage... "This is how I understand it" ... "You research something" ... "But your case seems to be able to just post it on a wiki that allows ''original-research''-that-is-not-outright-false. That would be Wikiversity."
Among all of these dozens of examples, I would suggest that [[User:MarcGarver|MarcGarver]] said it best by using the word, ''“'''[[wikt:egregious|]]'''”: reflecting the positive connotations of “standing out from the flock”.'' I believe he used this choice of adjective because these wikis are comprised of a community of editors who, if they can't agree on anything, have decided to delete whatever they cannot collectively contribute (to) since its tolerance would constitute a blockade (of sorts) and, thus, a lack of ''their collective accessibility.'' This would be a contradiction of their desire and intention to participate. Hence, ''“[[wikt:egregious|]]”'' is the operational word, '''here'''. Nothing else matters. ''Nor does it matter that '''this problem is not my fault!''''' Yet, because I attempt to make-up for whatever discrepancy of education may have occurred from our collective sources of learning by ''providing original research of my own,'' I am blamed for somebody else's problem '''merely because I am trying to fix it!''' ''Go back to sleep, or else accept me. '''This is not my choice. This is yours.''''' I cannot change my “skin” (my psychological profile) any more than anyone else can (apparently). It'll probably take a miracle, otherwise. I am not a miracle worker despite ''my egregious mannerisms''.
By the way, after doing the research to write this response, I've learned of the necessity of posting an appropriate tag at the top of the text, entitled: { {Original research} }. Thanks. -- ~~~~