User talk:Dialectric

Hi. Just to say the the WPCD 2 which you helped with is now browsable at http://schools-wikipedia.org and will be downloadable tomorrow evening. Thanks again. --BozMo talk 11:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you had some thoughts on intensive farming discussion page. There's a deadlock in progress over a plan to merge it and factory farming and industrial agriculture (which I'm against I should state). As this affects intensive farming perhaps you'd like to contribute. NathanLee 19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the link on the searches. We do want to improve this aspect and I will have a look

--BozMo talk 09:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I know that the article wasn't a copyright infringement when you wrote it, but all the revisions following yours were so I tagged it as such. Seeing as the original article consisted of one sentence, I imagine you could write it again.--User:Dycedarg 09:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thanks, its not one of my priorities, but you're welcome to write it again. Dialectric (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, keep going. I will make sure I have been through them all before the final cut (which is going to be mid April). --BozMo talk 17:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly be happy to look at any mock up, and agree what is there isn't great. The other hand made pages (subject pages, index pages) also could do with some work. The 2008/9 version is planned out end May with one addition which is "bus tours" where for pre programmed topics (say: "Tudor Britain") a little animated bus with take you through a series of articles clicking on the link from each one to the next. So we perhaps should add a bus stop... --BozMo talk 20:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a first attempt at a mockup for the subject page.

• I considered using the icons from the Wikipedia:Version_0.7 / wikipedia 1.0 project, but they are somewhat inconsistent.
• the current version only has 9/10 subjects vs. the selection project's 15. Wikipedia 1.0 project uses 10:
  • 1 Arts
  • 2 Language and literature
  • 3 Philosophy and religion
  • 4 Everyday life
  • 5 Society and social sciences
  • 6 Geography
  • 7 History
  • 8 Applied sciences and technology
  • 9 Mathematics
  • 10 Natural sciences
• this is just a photoshop mockup, but I could make an xhtml if needed.

• here is a possible alternate design for the front page. The text content is unfinished/filler taken from 2007 page.
• I also have alternate versions w/o the 'buttons', which would be done in css rather than graphics.
• both ideas are definitely open to changes/suggestions.

Dialectric (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of the drought related problems affecting hydro-electrical supply? www.energyshortage.org/ - Worldwide Energy Shortages - is updated daily with links to news articles listing many of the countries with energy shortages and the causes for them. You have to admit that all the evidence is suggesting that the peak oil and olduvai theories are correct. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a geology background, so can't make an informed judgement about 'peak oil' theory, though it seems plausible/likely. Olduvai theory, on the other hand is highly speculative, and makes predictive claims about a system (global economics) of massive complexity using limited data. As such, it seems incorrect to me, but I guess we'll see in 20 years, after the massive die-off. You might want to check out the life-boat hypothesis - environmental scientists were making similar predictions in the 1970s about die-offs resulting from exceeding agricultural carrying capacity.

The link you've posted is certainly interesting, but power shortages, like food shortages, are more often the result of breakdowns and inefficiencies in supply systems, including governance, infrastructure, etc, which are unrelated to how much power, or food, is actually available globally. Dialectric (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the wisdom and advice. What I am trying to do is some major research on all of these inventions so that they can be given credibility. By incorporating in text citations, the U.S. Inventions and Discoveries page will be more credible. Thanks again! --Yoganate79 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1663 Charlevoix earthquake ‎
2. 1663 in India ‎
3. 1670s in piracy ‎
4. 167th Support Battalion (United States) ‎
5. 1683 in Ireland ‎
6. 16 Camelopardalis ‎
7. 16 Lyncis ‎
8. 16th (Canadian Scottish) Battalion, CEF ‎
9. 16th Alberta Legislative Assembly ‎
10. 16th General Assembly of Nova Scotia ‎
11. 16th New Brunswick Legislative Assembly ‎
12. 16th Tony Awards ‎
13. 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone aldolase ‎
14. 1713 in Ireland ‎
15. 1732 Montreal earthquake ‎
16. 173rd Surveillance Squadron (Australia) ‎
17. 1757 in Ireland ‎
18. 1759 in Ireland ‎
19. 1769 in France ‎
20. 1775 in France ‎

John Reaves 03:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry, saw your entry on my talk page just now. Do not know about any other articles such as these two, but I have seen that user now for over a year copying and pasting badly researched and consistently one-sided material in all kinds of articles. He has over 40,000 edits, so you know...I think his consistent misquotation and overinterpretation of sources has brought POV to a new level in Wikipedia, because people tend to believe in assertions more if thez are backed up by a footnote. They are less prone to assume that the information is taken out of context or subtly modified to suit fix preconceptions. Thats why it has been so hard to come this new method. It needs hundreds of footnotes to be checked and most third party observers do not have the time, nor the interest to completely rewrite articles which were written wrongly from the scratch. A case in point is Talk:Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age. The net result is that, while many believe the article to be POV and have tried to improve it, many dubious assertions are still there and spread their message.

PS: Just checked again Timeline of historic inventions. It is hard to find a single uncontested invention there. Too many lists just lack information to the contrary. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. The only feasible way of stopping "devotee" POV is to have some guy tagging them all day, and the number of "devotees" of anything far outweighs the number of any would-be obssessive opponent. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thoughts - and my experience. It is very difficult to come by this mass production of NPOV articles and entries. I feel this begins to affect Wikipedia. A more rigorous application of deleting policy may have a deterring effect. I find it frustating when people vote for keep, but then nothing ever happens in improving these articles, what needs a HUGE amount of time and patience. Better delete and give somebody other a new chance to do it better from the outset. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YellowMonkey, I picked up on this discussion through the two related afds. I'm currently looking into one particular source used in one of the islamic science afd articles, and over 100 other articles, which seems to follow this same trend of non-neutral/revisionist history of invention: "Rocket Technology in Turkish history". I've posted it on the sources discussion board (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history) and wonder how to approach cleaning up an unreliable source that has been used in so many articles. Dialectric (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I'll have a look. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't think "Muslimheritage" is reliable at all, sounds more like a pride/activist website. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The document "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu (2007) was/is being used as a source in a number of articles relating to technology and history. The paper has a number of major errors including incorrect citation, which cast the entirety of its facts into doubt. As such, it cannot be trusted as a source for information, and I will continue to remove it where it is listed as a reference.

see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lag%C3%A2ri_Hasan_%C3%87elebi#Terzio.C4.9Flu_is_an_unreliable_source

Dialectric (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed (almost) all duplicate internal links from Inventions in medieval Islam, and a few other trivial ones as well. If there are any more links you think should be removed, please feel free to do so. I will soon do the same on Medicine in medieval Islam as well. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am just a wikignome, watching a dozen of maintenance categories, including Category:Articles with too many wikilinks. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section, which appears on a number of pages, makes a number of false claims, which I detail below. These errors are significant enough to justify the section's removal.

The origins of capitalism and free markets can be traced back to the Caliphate,^[1] where the first market economy and earliest forms of merchant capitalism took root between the 8th-12th centuries, which some refer to as "Islamic capitalism".^[2] A vigorous monetary economy was created on the basis of the expanding levels of circulation of a stable high-value currency (the dinar) and the integration of monetary areas that were previously independent. Innovative new business techniques and forms of business organisation were introduced by economists, merchants and traders during this time. Such innovations included the earliest trading companies, credit cards, big businesses, contracts, bills of exchange, long-distance international trade, the first forms of partnership (mufawada) such as limited partnerships (mudaraba), and the earliest forms of credit, debt, profit, loss, capital (al-mal), capital accumulation (nama al-mal),^[3] circulating capital, capital expenditure, revenue, cheques, promissory notes,^[4] trusts (waqf), startup companies,^[5] savings accounts, transactional accounts, pawning, loaning, exchange rates, bankers, money changers, ledgers, deposits, assignments, the double-entry bookkeeping system,^[2] and lawsuits.^[6] Organizational enterprises similar to corporations independent from the state also existed in the medieval Islamic world.^[7][8] Many of these early capitalist concepts were adopted and further advanced in medieval Europe from the 13th century onwards.^[3]

The systems of contract relied upon by merchants was very effective. Merchants would buy and sell on commission, with money loaned to them by wealthy investors, or a joint investment of several merchants, who were often Muslim, Christian and Jewish. Recently, a collection of documents was found in an Egyptian synagogue shedding a very detailed and human light on the life of medieval Middle Eastern merchants. Business partnerships would be made for many commercial ventures, and bonds of kinship enabled trade networks to form over huge distances. Networks developed during this time enabled a world in which money could be promised by a bank in Baghdad and cashed in Spain, creating the cheque system of today. Each time items passed through the cities along this extraordinary network, the city imposed a tax, resulting in high prices once reaching the final destination. These innovations made by Muslims and Jews laid the foundations for the modern economic system.

---

Challenges to above statements

---

Capitalism – either the definition of modern capitalism is used, situating the origin of capitalism in post-Renaissance Europe with corporations, generalized markets including a competitive labor market, investment banking, and commodity futures exchanges, or a looser standard of capitalist behavior is used, including international commerce, trade for the sake of profit, and long term credit, in which case the ancient world, as early as the 2nd millennium B.C. is the origin. Neither capitalist behavior nor modern capitalism originated in the Islamic world.( Warburton p 49)

free markets - a number of ancient Near Eastern cultures taxed grain production for revenue and did not restrict the actions or movements of merchants, who thus engaged in free markets.

market economy, merchant capitalism – markets with active profit-seeking merchants existed as early as the 2nd millennium BC in the Indus Valley, the ancient Near East, and the Agean. ( Warburton p 49)

monetary economy was created on the basis of... a stable high-value currency (the dinar)- the word dinar is derived from the Roman Denarius, which alone should suggest that Islamic society was not a pioneer in this area. Roman coinage circulated widely and was relatively stable. Silver and Shekels were widely used for inter-regional trade in the pre-Roman ancient world, and also were relatively stable. In fact, the dinar was not particularly stable, with the silver currency repeatedly debased by increased alloying from the 10th century onwards(Ashtor. p 175,176, 292)

big businesses - Corporations are a modern development, companies a development of Renaissance Italy. Ancient palaces acting as businesses were large in geographic and economic scale.(Warburton p119) Business in Muslim areas in the middle ages and up until the 19th century were in fact constricted in size and scale due to the limited scope of Islamic partnership law (Kuran p2)

contracts, long-distance international trade, credit, debt, profit, loss, capital, capital accumulation (nama al-mal), circulating capital, capital expenditure, revenue - all of these were present in ancient market economies (and control/palace economies) with profit-seeking traders who keep books/records. As such, they were present in the Roman empire, and in some form in ancient near-eastern trading cultures, notably the Old Assyrians, as early as the 2nd millennium BC.(Warburton p49,51,133)

loaning, exchange rates, bankers, money changers – these were all present in the Roman empire, and loans were recorded in the first millennium BC under Sargon II of Assyria (Warburton .P345)

earliest trading companies, credit cards, bills of exchange, the first forms of partnership (mufawada) such as limited partnerships (mudaraba), cheques, trusts (waqf), startup companies - Although partnerships were prevalent in the medieval Islamic world, they did not originate there, since partnerships existed in Roman times (Kuran.p15). These partnerships cannot be considered (startup) companies because of the restrictions imposed by Islamic law including limiting waquf formation to an individual rather than a group or association, limiting control to the founder and founding deed, which deed was considered unalterable, and enforced by judges. The modern company emerged in Renaissance Italy.(Kuran. p19). The claim that credit cards originated in the Medieval Islamic world is not credible and needs no counter-citation.

lawsuits. the lawsuit predates Islam, and was certainly present in Roman times. “Corpus Juris Civilis, the law code compiled during the reign of Justinian I , allows the imperial treasury to sue and be sued in court.” (Kuran p5)

Organizational enterprises similar to corporations... existed in the medieval Islamic world. the modern Corporation originated in post-Renaissance Europe. If a loose definition of similarity is used, such organizations appeared in Roman times(Kuran p4,5) In fact, Kuran's paper (which was cited in this section as support for the claim to 'startup companies') points out that the Islamic world avoided organizational structures similar to the corporation until the late 19th century, instead focusing on more limited trusts.

These remain unchallenged for now, but based upon the above mis-attribution, they are on tenuous ground:

promissory notes, pawning, the double-entry bookkeeping system

---

References

---

Warburton, David, Macroeconomics from the beginning: The General Theory, Ancient Markets, and the Rate of Interest. Paris: Recherches et Publications, 2003.

E. Ashtor, A Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.

Timur Kuran (2005), "The Absence of the Corporation in Islamic Law: Origins and Persistence", American Journal of Comparative Law 53, pp. 785–834.

I saw your note over at Talk:Ancient_economic_thought#Removal_of_Capitalist_market_economy_section_which_discussed_Islamic_Islamic_origin_of_economic_structures. I haven't looked at your sources, but it seems like you've done your homework on this. Have you talked to the person who added this material (diff). II | (t - c) 07:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This content was added to a number of articles at various times, and I have not yet put in the time to track down and contact the original author. I see you have contacted Jagged 85, who contributed some of the material to some pages, and may be responsible for most of it, but I have not made that assumption nor dug through the history to find who authored the material. I noted (and linked to) the discussion here in my edit summary, and on the articles' talk pages, and hope that was sufficient to making my actions known to interested parties. Dialectric (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to be scribbling on your talk page so frequently recently, but I noticed the discussion above and wondered if you might take a look at User:Syncategoremata/Misuse of sources and the material that I (and other editors) have gathered about this particular editor.

I would be interested if you had any other material, in particular recent edits, or if you had any advice about how to deal with this sort of issue. I am too new here on Wikipedia to have a good grasp on how to proceed at this point.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reply to my question to Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) about the life expectancy in the Caliphate. I've just tagged quite generally the claims made about this on Wikipedia and put some discussion at Talk:Islamic Golden Age#Claims on life expectancy. I only know enough in this area to note that the claims are badly sourced and distorted, so I'm not likely to be able to contribute much more now, other than deleting all of the claims in due course if nothing better is found to support them.

All the best. —Syncategoremata (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted your c/e'ing of the edits made by 119.155.74.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (along with their edits) as those appear to be WP:COPYVIO from [1]. I guess the same person did exactly that a few days ago from 119.155.74.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'll leave a note on their talk page but I guess they won't see it as they seem to be address hopping.

All the best. —Syncategoremata (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the tip of the iceberg. See User:Syncategoremata/Misuse of sources and User:Gun Powder Ma/Misuse of sources for trying to make a case. If you could join in with your past experience by creating a similar list, that would be a great help. The more people voice their concern now, the better. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. -- Syncategoremata (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay but I've been meaning to thank you for signing the closing summary to this RfC/U. I'm glad that it is now behind us and I hope we never have to go through something like that again.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syncategoremata, thank you for all the work you put into the RfC. The whole thing was handled really well, in large part due to your work, and the resolution will definitely make a positive impact on wikipedia's accuracy. Dialectric (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed at History of optics and on your contribution page that you've started removing the unreliable citations of Muslimheritage.com. It's a good idea but when you do so, either be bold and remove the assertions based upon those sources or at least leave a {{Citation Needed}} template to open discussion about the assertion.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working to remove claims originating from Muslimheritage.com from a number of articles. Content from Muslimheritage.com / FSTC is an unreliable source, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science. None of its publications are peer-reviewed, and its authors often exhibit a strong bias and incomplete or flawed citation practices. The site has been used as a source in numerous science and history of science articles to make extraordinary claims about Islamic invention and discovery. I am working to remove these extraordinary claims where they stem directly and solely from a Muslimheritage.com reference. Many of these claims were added by a user who has a history of using flawed sources for extraordinary claims, as discussed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. That page details numerous examples where claims from these sources contradict more reliable sources, on a scale which casts the entirety of the material originating from the site into doubt. If you would like to discuss this or any related removal with me, please leave a note here. Dialectric (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your reason for removing the sources, having been involved in the RfC/U, and am pleased that you are now removing them. My concern is was that you're were only doing it half way. When removing the sources, you should also do something about the claims which those sources were cited to support. Otherwise, the articles will continue to misinform the reader and will have to be cleaned up by someone else who will not have the unreliable citations to mark the unsupported claims. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you're marking your new edits with a {{Citation Needed}} template. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(written before most recent reply) -->

Steve, can you give an example of what you're looking at? I've removed a few statements that seemed especially dubious, and fact tagged several more. There have also been quite a few where there were two or more sources for the claim, however questionable, and I have just removed the muslimheritage sourcing, leaving the existing source, and so the tag seemed not to make sense. Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the edit that had caught my eye was this one at History of optics, which I revised to add the {{Citation Needed}} templates.

I think someone mentioned that cleaning up after Jagged 85 will take more effort than it did for him to make the edits; that's why I'm concerned that the cleanup be thorough and doesn't leave a lot of dust hidden in the dark corners. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding this edit, you might be interested in this. Work at hand... Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent tool I hadn't realised existed. I have been removing some of these links too, though right now I'm trying to get it through to Kaka Mughal (talk · contribs) to stop creating articles based on that source. At least they are editing from an account now I suppose: they were causing havoc from various IPs beforehand (or so I believe).

Anyhow, I just thought I'd hijack this message to say thanks for a link to that tool and to moan a bit.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sync, I hijacked the tool from the first link in the template {{spamlink|MuslimHeritage.com}}, resulting in

MuslimHeritage.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

So there's more. On a few occations, I even have put this template on some spammer's talk page with the friendly request that they would use it to locate and remove further intances of their spam. The result was impressive -- spamming stopped. DVdm (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, DVdm - I didn't know about that tool, and it should speed up this process significantly as I had been primarily relying on special page -> search to locate occurrences of these sources. Dialectric (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Mediaeval Islamic Prototype of the Fountain Pen? by CE Bosworth - Journal of Semitic Studies, 26(2):229-234 is used in a number of articles for the claim of the 1st fountain pen. This is a short (6 page) article, mostly made up of translation of a passage from al-Quadi al-Nu'man, Kitab al-Majalis wa 'l-musayarat; the author of the original Arabic text is described as 'confidant and companion of the heir-apaprent al-Mu'izz.'(p229)

The passage describes a non-leaking pen with a reservoir, first described and requested by al-Mu'izz, then produced, out of gold, by a craftsman in 'not more than a few days'. There is no mention of how the pen functions, how it is filled, or what sort of ink it uses. A quote suggests that the pen only works for certain people, and has a will of its own - "it only bestows benefit on a person really desiring it, and it does not let its ink flow except for a person who has a right to summon it forth because the pen approves of him" (p233) This suggests that the account cannot be entirely factual. The question mark in the article title suggests that Bosworth may have some doubt about its veracity.

The claim that the pen used 'gravity and capillary action' is not in the cited article but has been added to the wikiarticles which reference this source. Though there is mention of turning the pen upside down without leaking, the claim of gravity and capillary action is original research, as there is no mention of the mechanism, which could have for instance, involved trigger of some kind to activate the reservoir, or could have been magical, given that from the above quote, the pen is apparently in possession of the ability to discern character.

I am not sure how best to situate this article/fact in wikipedia articles, other than to say that it may have been an early fountain pen, but point out that this single historical source seems to be the sole source of this claim, no fountain pen from this period has been found, and the mechanism remains unknown. Dialectric (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even the MuslimHeritage.com article on this ("Origins of the Fountain Pen". MuslimHeritage.com.) doesn't go so far as to claim anything about "gravity and capillary action". I think that is just a copy/paste from the first sentence of the fountain pen article), to enhance the description. Would the following text be suitable?

The earliest historical record of a reservoir fountain pen is in a 10th century source, which says that in 953, Ma'ād al-Mu'izz, the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt, demanded a pen which would not stain his hands or clothes. He was provided with one which held ink in a reservoir and delivered it to the nib. No further details of the construction of this pen are known and no examples have survived.

Alternatively the last sentence could just be dropped? (By the way, I've not seen the article and I'm depending here on the details I've gleaned here and elsewhere.)

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your note. I cannot see that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science calls for an outright ban on MuslimHeritage.com, especially when what it says is just supported by other sources. The problem, as I gather, is if/when professor "Hassan's views either conflict with or are not reflected in the mainstream literature". Which is not the case here, AFAIK. If you want an outright ban on all pages of MuslimHeritage.com, then I suggest you bring it to the WP:RS-board again. (But if that should be banned, then, say, shouldn´t Jewish Virtual Library also be banned?) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a bit of a storm in a tea-cup, methinks. The way I see it: in this, MuslimHeritage.com does not contradict other published sources. So why not keep it? Again; I cannot see the above discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science as a outright ban on MuslimHeritage.com. Though I do see, ( skimming Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85) that the site has been "overused", to put it very diplomatically. Anyway; I am not going to undo my edit, however, I´m certainly not going to edit-war with you over it. Oh, and please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions. It seems as if quite a few sources which have been found acceptable in the past does not meet present standards...but, e.g., we still have 340 refs to FrontPageMag.com, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying (I seem to have been distracted by 'fun' elsewhere in Wikipedia) but thanks for the heads up on the evolution claims in Science_in_medieval_Islam#Zoology.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dialectric, I just want to recommend a good plug-in software for programmers. There is no way to think about it is a spam/advert. I think all the technologies branches and released date are what we programmers are really care about. The reason why I want to try my best to save this article is already in Articles for deletion/TWaver. I will be very appreciate your time. Thank you. Swinggeek (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, unless you are able to provide reliable 3rd party sources, it is looking like the consensus in the articles for deletion discussion is to delete the article. This deletion would be in line with established wikipedia policy for notability, as other editors have stated there. Dialectric (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are invited to take part in the discussion on Science in the Middle Ages. The question is should we keep or remove the section on the Islamic world. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(earlier autoblock issue discussion removed)

An IP I commonly use has been Autoblocked again. This is a shared ip with well over 100 users. Also, if someone has the time, could he or she please explain why secure login doesn't get around this?

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): IPBE applied. Request handled by: Kuru (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Reviewing this now. Kuru (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly problematic long term abuser using the same service you are; after reviewing your edits, I don't see any indication that this was you at all. I've applied a setting to your account that will exempt it from these types of blocks in the future. Many apologies for the inconvenience. Kuru (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Dialectric,

I have been doing some major edits on the Under floor heating subject and saw your participation on the history section.

I have created a new discussion item with a proposal to delete the existing history section and replace it with a time line format...data is pulled from a peer reviewed published paper in the ASHRAE Journal.

Before I do such a major edit I'm reaching out to those who have contributed in the past.

If you have time please comment.

Thanks 70.73.61.221 (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Travis Bean, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Bean until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 19:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undeleting the article. I've made some changes which I expect will address most concerns, but we will see how it plays out in the AfD. Dialectric (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think this should be closed since you're the nom and you !voted keep? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was initially speedy deleted, so I suggested AfD instead. I was never of the opinion that the article should be deleted, just thought this would be the clearest way to establish notability/validity of the article. It is looking like the AfD is leaning towards keep in any case; I still think the justification for the speedy delete was weak. Dialectric (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Arthur L. Hall has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of lasting notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial site.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ravendrop (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an additional reference and stated on the talk page of the article why the subject is notable. Dialectric 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You -Aquib (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have you checked Sarton saying this? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't checked that section on Sarton. The sentences I removed were cut because they were cited to muslimheritage.org, using Jagged's cf ("copied from") notation, which he used when he hadn't read the original source, and thus unreliable. Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. For now, I've been following the naming convention of the existing categories such as Islamic mathematics, Islamic astronomy...etc We will think about the naming later. Besides, the claim that such fields cannot be called "Islamic X" is an opinion really. An editor wrote on the use of "Islamic mathematics" after surveying all terms used in the literature:

" ["Islamic mathematics"]...together with Arabic mathematics by far the most frequently used term in academic literature in to refer to this period in the history of mathematics. Of these two Arabic mathematics is probably used the most, however Islamic mathematics is more common in recent literature." Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dialectric. On 24 March you proposed ATOMIC Authoring Tool for deletion, and after a week I duly deleted it. However, an editor has now contested the deletion via my talk page, so I have undeleted it. You may wish to consider whether or not to take it to Articles for Deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And on a similar note, the same thing occurred with New millennium writings, now moved to the correct name of New Millennium Writings. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you also record from now on your edits at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits? Thx Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you also record from now on your edits at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits? Thx Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim B. Syed PhD's "Islamic Medicine: 1000 years ahead of its times" is being used in 10+ articles on wikipedia for claims related to the history of medicine. It is an unreliable source, and I will remove it where it is the sole source for a claim. The journal where the article was published is not peer-reviewed. The author is a doctor and not a historian. The paper uses non-scholarly language throughout. It has an explicitly partisan aim - "The aim of this paper is to prove that the Islamic Medicine was 1000 years ahead of its times" p3, and and exhibits a strong pro-Islamic bias "While Paris and London were places of mud streets and hovels, Baghdad, Cairo and Cardboard(sic.) had hospitals open to both male and female patients;" p1.

(paper link: link: http://www.ishim.net/ishimj/ishimj2.htm )

Good! BTW, I am watching all the Jagged cleanup pages and see your many updates. Magnificent work! Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also 1! Doncsecz^talk 13:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrote now some article about some writers and poets. Other articles later. Doncsecz^talk 18:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still many uncited, redlinked names in these lists. I will continue to remove uncited redlinks to bring these lists and other similar ones into compliance with the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Dialectric (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input on the latest proposals/questions is welcome. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have added some external reference to clarify the main point of Jekejeke Prolog. Also currently some independent work is in progress that will result in a publication that will probably mention Jekejeke Prolog, but this might take a couple of extra weeks time until I have vetted through it.

Bye

Janburse (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you rollback now. Strange that I've never done it before for anyone, but then I've never been asked and I guess a lot of people either don't really know about it or use Twinkle. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Dialectric: Pardon me spouting free advice, and I'm sorry if you know all this, but normally when someone is given rollback they first say that they understand WP:ROLLBACK, or the admin tells them to be careful. In brief, use rollback only to revert vandalism (as defined at WP:VAND, which means that any passer by has to be able to recognize the edit as an obvious attempt to damage the article). For example, a misguided POV pusher should generally not be rolled back because their POV (even if everyone agrees it is POV) is not vandalism. It is ok to rarely roll back a lot of similar edits that are not vandalism, but which are clearly against consensus or some crystal-clear policy, but there must be a long explanation for the rollbacks given at an appropriate talk page, and probably including a message at the reverted user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dougweller for the rollback setting. Johnuniq, I've now read and understand the policy, and will only use the rollback for vandalism. Dialectric (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have made those points myself. I've seen editors get into trouble for misusing it, even when their intentions were good, so do always be careful with it, esp when the issues are pov, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took him to ANI earlier, thanks for spotting the copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added some references to the Urban Jungle article, so please check if it is ok now to remove notifications listed above the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modra (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not easy. This writers for ex. István Persa, Márk Koczett, own biography is not yet processed. The bibliography of Prekmurian works just mention the names and the works. Doncsecz^talk 06:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep a list of the writers without articles, you could do that on the article talk page or on a page in your user space. They don't belong in the main article, though, until there are verifiable sources. Dialectric (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've noticed some. I've checked, and very few have individual articles in even the Italian Wikipedia. Normally the title of a book of a notable author is a usable redirect, so there's no reason for outright deletion. So they shouldn't be deleted, they should be redirected back to the article on him, with the description of the book added to the list of his works, and the resulting circular internal link unlinked. There are a lot of them--do you think you could get them all? A very few have individual articles in the Italian Wikipedia, and those few consequently should not be redirected, but marked

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Italian. (March 2012) Click [show] for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the Italian article. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Italian Wikipedia article at [[:it:Julius Evola]]; see its history for attribution. You may also add the template {{Translated|it|Julius Evola}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

-- assuming there is any actual content in the Italian articles. I'm removing the prods, and replacing with merge tags. If you can not follow up, please let me know on my talk p. and I will eventually get to it myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the links on [2], it appears that less than 10 of his books have articles on Italian wikipedia. The Italian articles appear to be thoroughly sourced, but would need a translator. The english wikipedia articles I nominated for deletion are all unreferenced stubs, with some NPOV wording in the summaries, leaving nothing to merge. I have tried to merge album stubs into the artist's articles in the past, and it was suggested at that time that I not create circular redirects. Dialectric (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about Julius Evola, then I linked the Italian Wikipedia article about him in the Expand Italian template. Buspirtraz (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on removing some of the name dropping cruft from the article. Ridernyc (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer, I'm notifying you that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer (2nd nomination) has been opened. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent removal of material is justified by the discussion about the user that added it but the reference does indeed contain the referenced material and it is a RS. I'm wondering if it's removal was a rash decision? --Daffydavid (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to the full text of the reference in question? The banned user, Jagged_85, has a history of adding invented text cited to difficult to check reliable sources. Dialectric (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The info is available at the referenced page - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297510/. It is in fact a direct quote from the third paragraph of the history section. I'm not an expert on this subject, I stumbled across it one day while editing another page but the information looks both credible and accurate. --Daffydavid (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the addition of a "May be a neologism" tag to the mentioned article. 'Immersive design' is indeed a term that has only come into currency in the past five years, but is increasingly used and accepted to describe a form of design that encompasses both game design and the traditional production design of the film industry.

I've been teaching art direction and production design at NSCAD and NSCC [[3]] for many years and I now routinely use the term 'immersive design' in this context--as do a number of my colleagues.

I think you can safely remove the tag. - D. Mark Laing --OldCommentator (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove the tag if you want. I won't re-add the tag, though I'd ideally like to see an additional reference or two on the article which made use of the term - one of the two refs provided in the article does not include the phrase 'immersive design' and the other is a deadlink. Dialectric (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the following edits: (1, 2 and 3) and many others in the area of Islamic science:

1. Disputed: the claims of "father" and "founder" are well attested by multiple reliable sources (see this article). Just because you're "unaware" of them, or because you think that some other European scholar is more worthy of the title, does not make the statement "disputed". One can say that a claim is "disputed" only when there is a reliable source explicitly questioning the "father" claim attributed to a scholar. And even then, we're supposed to present both views neutrally (with the appropriate weight). For an example, see the entries of Ibn Hazm or Al-Farabi in the above linked article.

2. Extraordinary: Again similar to the above point. What makes you think it is an extraordinary statement? and who are you to dismiss a reference or a claim as "fringe" or "presentist"? This is clearly removal on original research and/or "I just don't like it" grounds.

3. Consistency: Your edits where you removed the above content, based purely on your own claims that it is "disputed" or "extraordinary", is also not consistent in my opinion. Apparently, it is extraordinary for a non-European scholar like Abulcasis to invent the ligature, but really ordinary for that of European descent (Ambroise Paré). And it appears that you haven't been bothered at all by the fact that Paré's bit is not even cited by a reference.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with much of the Jagged_85-related material which I have removed and you have subsequently questioned, the claims I've removed here, upon closer inspection, prove flawed. I am not removing material because I don't like it. I am removing it because it either misrepresents sources or advances incorrect history. I am working to remove inaccuracy, not to boost European scientists.

on these specific claims,

(1)Abulcasis as father of surgery. 'Often regarded' is misleading wording implying that this view is near-universal, or widely held. He is in fact one of a number surgeons who have been called this, as the Father of modern surgery article shows. Shouldn't each of these people be included? Something like Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi has been called 'father of surgery', an appellation which has also applied to Sushruta, Guy de Chauliac, Ambroise Paré, Hieronymus Fabricius, John Hunter, Philip Syng Physick, Joseph Lister, Theodor Billroth, and William Stewart Halsted.

(2)History of surgery: Abulcasis as inventor of the ligature. I've added a reference showing that Galen performed ligatures.

(3)Razi as the father of pediatrics for writing The Diseases of Children. Again, 'is considered' implies that this view is universal. The Pediatrics article shows otherwise, as it describes Abraham Jacobi as father of the field and has a reference describing him as such.Dialectric (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a fine job keep up the good work. In my opinion user Al-Andalusi is not making a good faith effort to build an encyclopedia. I rewrote some of the surgery and I am looking at a clean-up on Razi. Right now I have so many projects going that I feel like I've given myself home work that I don't want to do. J8079s (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The statement reads "often regarded as the father", it does not say "is the father" which is a much stronger statement. Two are different claims.

(2) Right, but you have not removed Ambroise Paré on the same grounds. See your bias?

(3) Agreed, but in this case I would expect one to downgrade the claim to something like "has been described as a father of" rather than outright removal (that says it has been disputed).

Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the PROD from Science Sleuths and thought it would be courteous to let you know about it. I left a message at Talk:Science Sleuths#DePRODing with the reason. Cheers. 64.40.54.160 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for tagging this page for notability. I've looked it over and it doesn't seem to meet WP:NALBUM. I've proposed a merger, you may want to add your comments to that discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for tagging this for notability back in 2009. The tag's still there. If you still think it doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, you may want to make it a redirect to Sol Invictus, or take it to AfD or WP:N/N. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed your edit removing the Peak Cheap Oil section from the Peak Oil Article.

You appear to be an experienced Wikipedian, and presumably know better than to make such edits without first discussing them on the article's talk page. In future, please do not presume to make significant edits without talk page discussion.

The PCO section is entirely appropriate to the PO article, and moving it to Eric Janszen's page didn't make any sense.

ErikTownsend (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted on the Peak Oil page, removal of unreferenced content is in line with wikipedia's policies, and does not necessarily require prior discussion. Dialectric (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this report of that user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/117.90.245.113. --Cold Season (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last August, you correctly tagged Ibn Abi Ishaq for notability. I've been working on some related biographies in the field of Arabic grammar and very soon, I will hit that article hard via both Google Books and what I have in my personal library. Since you were the one who tagged it, I was wondering if you could look at the article in the coming weeks - if the notability is proven and the tag is to be removed, I would feel more comfortable with you being the one to do so, if that's alright with you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to find some reliable sources for the article. I've removed the tag.Dialectric (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your efforts have improved the article. I know they reflect a significant amount of work and you have taken care to work things out on the talk page first. Kudos. BTW you may want to archive your talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed your improvements to the Herbalism article. Keep up the good work.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I'm just a newcomer to Wikipedia. I don't know anything about AfD process. Now, you can find certain notability for this software when you google it. Can I create the same article after this software got maximum notability in 2014? - - User_talk:DeebashVFX 10:33, 27 December 2013 (+5.30)

Hi, wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be complex when you're new to editing, so no need to apologize. 'Notability' has a specific meaning in wikipedia, which is discussed on WP:N page. Software articles are discussed more specifically on WP:NSOFT. The main issue raised in the afd is lack of 'significant coverage in reliable sources' and whenever you create an article, you should have at least one reference to such coverage. If you read both notability pages and still think you have reliable sources for your article, you should mention them at the afd page. If your article is deleted, I'd suggest waiting until you have reliable sources, and then rather than creating it yourself, submit it to 'articles for creation' using the Wikipedia:Article wizard.Dialectric (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quark is one of most innovative coin at the top 10 Cryptocurrecny. http://coinmarketcap.com/

Please explain why it is not better than Dogecoin or, other existing coin. Please join the forum and argue your point other than deleting!

http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqayum (talk • contribs) 18:52, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quark Coin - an article on this cryptocurrency was discussed and found to not meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Discussions of whether content belongs on wikipedia are best held on wikipedia talk pages, not reddit forums.Dialectric (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As draft space is a new thing, I'm testing the waters on the opinion of deletionists about keeping non COPYVIO nor BLP content visible (maybe read-only?). The old wisdom about keeping a neat, clean space needs to be re-evaluated; as draft space is hidden from regular readers, there's no urgent need to keep it as clean as the main space. My take is that draft could safely contain the kind of content that we currently hold in talk pages and article history, which can be retrieved by regular editors.

I repeat this question to everybody that favour deletion their opinion about this view, because I've never fully understood the reason for fully deleting content that doesn't put in legal risk of can cause problems to living people - I think we largely delete whole articles out of inertia from the WMF resolution, but there's not a strong need to keep that kind of non-risk content out of view. What do you think about the new space? (I've watchlisted this talk page, you can answer here). Diego (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles to draft from afd only makes sense to me in cases where an article meets all of the Incubation criteria, and even then, I think userfication is typically better, as it places responsibility clearly with one editor to either make or track improvements.

If no one takes responsibility for an article's improvement, then the basis for saving is just this vague possibility that at some unspecified point in the future two things will have changed - an editor takes an active interest in the article and significant RS coverage can be found. Incubation was based on the principle that an article can and will be improved. If no clear path to improvement exists and no one is personally committed to improving the article, it is unlikely to be of use to anyone, and is far more likely to add to a junkyard of ignored, sub-standard content.Dialectric (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Incubator never worked very well, and that's because it's based on the opposite idea of how a Wiki allows content to grow. Making content difficult to access, assigning the responsibility to improve it to one editor or a small group, and deleting it after a period is the perfect recipe to guarantee there will never be anyone who cares about it. A project of this size needs to distribute is efforts, not restrict then to a few simultaneous resources for each bit of content.

Conversely, the early Wikipedia didn't care about who owned articles, and it kept them around no matter how in bad shape they were - a junkyard of ignored, sub-standard content was the origin of the current encyclopedia, which could have never been written without that early stage. This is what allowed the project to grow in the first place - even if an article was abandoned for years, somebody could eventually find it and improve it just a little bit; those improvements accumulated over years could be enough to shape it into something acceptable, if not great.

Now, I understand the subsequent need to shape the main space and keep it clean, in order to and remove all the falsehood and crap - so that the Encyclopedia could present to its readers a decent face and a selection of useful content. But the Draft space is not intended for readers, so it could recover the old way of doing things for all the areas which are underdeveloped and that could never grow under the current restrictive set of policies (I can think of African villages and schools, Bollywood movie stars, etc. as areas of knowledge that could never be written under the current bureaucratic process, but that could be consolidated into something great in the next years if we allow them to survive in the dark under Draft space, surfacing only the few articles when they slowly get an acceptable shape). Diego (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I have no idea how it happened; the only change I (thought I) made was linking "Literature" in the first line. The only thing I can think of is that the article didn't fully load and so I when I saved it, I edited that out by omission. Anyways, I re-linked that word, and this time the rest of the article came out unscathed. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page is for a defunct open-source project (last commits back in 2006), and should be deleted as you noted -- thanks for that. At the least, the contents should be changed to note that it is an inactive project. I can do the latter editing, but I'd rather see that page go. Textractor (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I sometimes go through the category listings for various software types looking at the stub articles and tagging those that have questionable notability and/or no references. Druid was one of those articles. When I remember, I check back 6 months to a year later, and propose deletion at that time if the tags are still in place and no improvements have been made. So, I personally would give it a few months to see if someone takes an interest or makes an improvement, but that is just my habit - I have no objection if you want to go ahead and propose deletion now.Dialectric (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Michaelmas to you too, and may the Archangel Michael bless you and keep you from the forces of Satan! I would also like to open this to a larger discussion. Canvassing sympathetic editors is a Wikipedia no-no, for one thing. And it's quite plain to me that the article just awful. I have never heard of anyone asking for time to complete an article on Wikipedia (when I was an editor, authors used to ask it of me all the time, but they were being paid for their work and they were genuine writers). Have you ever filed a conflict resolution? I have never done it before. Can you do it? I'll back you up. I'm certain when objective eyes see the article they will agree with us, unless standards of good writing have gone completely to hell. Chisme (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't filed a conflict resolution, but have participated in them, and am fine with filing one. It will probably take me a a day or two to get the relevant content together.Dialectric (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing the Dispute Resolution. I think you stated it well. I have nothing to add. I'll watch how it turns out. Chisme (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing came of our efforts to make V.S. Naipaul readable. Oh well. The article reads like a 19th Century catechism for the teaching of children. I can't imagine anyone plowing through it. When the owner relinquishes control, I'll make a stab at copy editing it. But I have a feeling he will resent every change I suggest or make. Chisme (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove article improvements that are explained in the talk section whilst telling the editor to look at the talk page. You should read the talk page before making such changes. 86.50.88.16 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the talk page, Talk:Timeline of psychology and as I have now replied there, stating an opinion without citing wikipedia policy or waiting for other editors is not a discussion. I suggest you wait for other input and not engage in repeated reverts until that discussion concludes. Dialectric (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:CMD.EXE#Move request – CMD.EXE to Cmd.exe. Thanks. Fleet Command (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could you possibly review these articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabin_(font) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lato_(font) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregularis? Are there any major differences between them and my suggested articles Eyadish or Sherbrooke?

Thank you so much for your highly appreciated cooperation.

Eyadnalsamman (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there does not appear to be a major difference between those articles and yours. Unfortunately, though, that means those articles should also be tagged for notability, and potentially subject to afd deletion. I'm not aware of a specific guideline for font/typeface articles, but the general notability guideline WP:GNG is key here - in essence, for almost all subjects, you need 'significant coverage in reliable sources' independent of the subject. If you can find books or articles covering your fonts, either on the web or in print, point them out in the afd. If no such coverage exists, the articles are likely to be deleted. If you are able to find WP:RS coverage at some point in the future, you can ask to have the articles restored/recreated.Dialectric (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Mary Beckett, Dialectric!

Wikipedia editor Kmccook just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Would like to see this expanded with more references.

To reply, leave a comment on Kmccook's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi Dialectric! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that the rest of the websites in that section are very similar to mine. For example social-engineer.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.23.219.8 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Engineering page may well have other links that don't meet WP:EL, and those should be removed as well. I will take a look soon.Dialectric (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, This page Mehfil Magazine was created in 2008. You marked it as having no citations. The creator of this page tried added some citations and references and I cleaned them up according to my best knowledge. Now can you please take a look at the page and see if it still lacks citations and references. Thanks and Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMattu (talk • contribs) 17:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see your adding a lot of dead link tags. Are you familiar with Internet Archive's Wayback Machine? Most dead links can be found there. There are two methods. If it's an External link, use the {{wayback}} template. If it's a citation, use the built-in cite feature "|archiveurl=" and "|archivedate=". Thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. -- GreenC 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about this. How do you see MEDRS being overextended? if you care to discuss with me, that is. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revisit the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read your reply there... but your original comment was written to him, about his experience, which has mostly been with me. Yuor response was kind of tangential to that. I asked you before here, and you chose not to answer then. I'll ask you again - if you have some issues with my editing, I would be glad to hear about that from you, straight and clear, and would be happy to discuss. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked before about my views on MEDRS, not about your editing. I did not and do not think MEDRS implementation would be a productive conversation to have here. I try to focus on editing articles and to avoid long talk page discussions and noticeboards whenever possible.

I do not have an issue with your article editing. I recognize your efforts to improve the sourcing on ag / agchem articles. I have been concerned in the past with your talk page treatment of some new editors on these articles, which I saw as too harsh. I think your communication with SageRad was reasonable. We appear to have differing opinions on when peer-reviewed primary sources should be used, but that is about the relevant policies and lack thereof, not about you.Dialectric (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much for replying - i appreciate you taking the time. thanks for the feedback. if there is more that you want to say at any point, i am open to hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The auto-archiving only works when there is a proper timestamp. There is a bug in the code for when the unsigned-bot puts a timestamp in the section and that remains the only timestamp. The archiving is supposed to be done every 12 days and that particular section is more than a month old.

Cheers, jps (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will keep that in mind in the future.Dialectric (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dialectric. I noticed you had done some work on the Equifax page in the past. Thought you might have a general interest in the area and was wondering if you would consider helping out with some requested edits on the TransUnion article. I have a WP:COI. Need someone to look the edits I have posted on the talk page and review for consideration. All of them may not work, but wanted to offer them up. Appreciate any assistance you can provide. Thx! SusanChana (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dialectric.Reaching out to you to see if you might offer some assistance. Because of a WP:COI I am unable to make some needed updates to the TransUnion article. I noticed that you have been active on the Equifax article and was wondering if you might consider reviewing some suggestions I posted on the TransUnionTalk page. I am happy to do the work to add in the info if that works best for you, but need to have someone else take a look to be sure all is ok. Appreciate any assistance you can provide. Thanks! SusanChana (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not currently have time to work on this.Dialectric (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you getting back to me. Thx anyway!SusanChana (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dialectric,

I didn't want to further confuse the thread so thought I'd leave this here. You have my full permission to open a new thread with the revert of my edits, and the two (interesting) links to past 'discussions'. The reason I wanted to write this is so that progress isn't impeded by my schedule and energy level. It might be easier for me to participate once the thread is opened, and on the off chance you have the extra time and energy, please feel very free to do that. petrarchan47คุก 03:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If not, I'll get to it soonish. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 21:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the section on public perception. I plan on looking for a few more relevant examples from other articles tomorrow. Dialectric (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. I seem to recall that my original article originated as a redirect from a redlink of Bullit which I took to be a mis-spelling of the film title Bullitt. - knoodelhed (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know I reverted your deletion and upgraded the article. You'll find all the info on the new M-150 (energy drink) article and its talk page. Thanks for taking time to clean up the drinks category but please look out for the so-called "systematic bias" against products from regions outside your usual scope. You actually deleted what is probably the first or second most popular energy drink in South-East Asia and the most consumed energy drink in Thailand, which also happens to be the place where this very notable product category was created and the place where consumption patterns are the highest in the world. Good thing I had this on my watchlist and starting recontributing on the Wikipedia this week after years of absence! Rdavout (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to contribute sources to the article. Popularity and sales figures aren't in themselves sufficient to establish notability, so I do not think my redirecting of the unreferenced article was biased. Wikipedia has grown much more focused on reliable sources over the last few years, and product articles lacking independent references are likely to be redirected or nominated for deletion regardless of the country of origin or raw sales data.Dialectric (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop marking links as "dead" without performing a due diligence search to see if the link is still alike at a slightly different address. You did this twice on Weegee, and less than a minute's time spent on a Google search found the new links. Just slapping on a "dead link" tag is not helpful to the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw I appreciate that Dialectric takes the time to test links and I don't mind going behind him/her fixing links in articles I watch. everybody does a bit. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so strongly, BMK, you should work to get your views reflected in WP policy. Currently there is no official policy regarding an obligation to look up deadlinks. I agree that searching for a new link is better than tagging deadlinks, but disagree with your view that such tags are not a contribution to the encyclopedia. Some users have limited bandwidth speed and/or data caps, and visiting offwiki websites to hunt down links is not always feasible.Dialectric (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really give a damn if there's an "official policy" specifically about it or not, it falls under the category of being "collaborative and collegial." What you're doing is the equivalent of drive-by tagging, leaving the work for other people to do. It's rude, and you shouldn't do it. BMK (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:DEADREF:

Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible.

Just establishing that a link is dead is not enough. BMK (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to attempt to bring admin action against me if you think you are supported by policy. Otherwise, do not comment on this issue on my talk page again. Profanity is unconstructive and unnecessary. Also, your understanding of WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING differs from the wikipedia definition. That section refers to "confusing or ambiguous tags" and "non-obvious problems". Deadlink tags are unambiguous. Dialectric (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectric, the redirects you are making require discussion. There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons; I invite you to participate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there.Dialectric (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a reminder not to make false statements about editors, especially on noticeboards as you did here. I only made two reverts at the article today as already explained at the noticeboard. If you are not aware, a series of continuous edits represents one revert, not multiple per WP:3RR. Please be careful about this in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck part of my statement. I still think page protection was in order as this was clearly an edit war even if it did not technically hit 3rr.Dialectric (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I mentioned on the board, the content dispute ended, so I'm fine with page protection or not. Hopefully it does slow things down a bit for awhile. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, based on past interactions at Glyphosate and elsewhere, I thought you might be interested in the current ArbCom case. The Arbitration Committee is currently inviting comments from any parties that have past experience with the topics, or persons, involved. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am following the current Arbcom case. It looks like Arbcom will take the case, and depending on the scope they determine, I may decide to comment in the evidence section as a somewhat-involved editor.Dialectric (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your edit, which was consequently reversed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&type=revision&diff=681124726&oldid=681111469

I'm not the only one who disagrees with your reasoning. At the most, "Science communicator" should be added to Novella's WP article. The hurdle is quite low. Be an expert in science and communicate about that with the public. Novella has a blog, appears on other websites, on TV and radio, and the main topic is always science and explaining its principles. He's also created coursework for laypeople on skepticism and science. The shoe fits. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am still skeptical about the use of the term "Science communicator" in this context, but don't plan to edit the Folta article further except possibly on the talk page. The descriptor seems like puffery used to enhance the stature of the source. Novella's public communication mostly falls into two categories, neuroscience, and debunking fraudulent medicine. He has done no apparent professional work, and very little communication, in the areas of agricultural science or research funding which would be relevant to the Folta issue.Dialectric (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Science communicator" isn't much of a quality statement. "Puffery" comes with the territory. And then: you yourself have just described him as a science communicator in two areas, "neuroscience" and "debunking of fraudulent medicine". The last part is where I see intersections between Folta and Novella. See Folta's work in debunking (fraudulent) claims by e.g. "The Food Babe" and others. Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand your reasoning here, maybe you regard "science communicator" much higher than I do. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your question on the Stratford University Talk Page. I believe that the for-profit should be eliminated in view of the for-benefit status. There are only a few schools that are for benefit. Perhaps we should created a separate category for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaTechGuy (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I have continued the discussion on the Stratford University Talk Page. Dialectric (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)