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 • Spamcheck • 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)[reply]

I usually prepare those sort of template reports in notepad and guess I pasted a diff in the wrong bit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dialectric

I think you did added the inline links to the French wikipedia, but it can be difficult to follow the edits sometimes. If I am mistaken I offer my apologies in advance and you can ignore the rest. I turned them into red links with this edit.[4] My main concern is confusion, most people expect to go to the English version and may think something is wrong if the end up at the French one. I also am not sure how useful it is as most people reading this website probably don't know a lot of french. Red links can encourage article creation (or so I have been told I have no evidence for this) so I thought that might be a better option. Feel free to revert if you disagree, AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added one french wikipedia link. The others were already there. Help:Interlanguage links doesn't clarify whether redlinks or foreign language links are preferred, but it does offer a third option, the redlink followed by a (fr) external link, which in my opinion would provide readers with the most information. Dialectric (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds perfect. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My question relates to whether it might be asking a page for deletion by substafd but note that in the discussions in person you write it or copy it when you write it here. I hope that you as a perennial users with good reputation would have a greater chance for successful completion substafd process and permanently delete a page than I. Only my request that you personally write a comment for deletion and do not write that I'm suggesting that you do anything. If you can not accept this and I'll write the name of items for deletion. I remind you that I urge you to personally put a comment for deletion and there is absolutely no mention of my account. I hope you set up a page on the discussion to delete because of this my remarks. I remind you that I want to stay completely anonymous for various reasons. I'm asking you to act like you're asked to delete the item without anyone's suggestions. Randysokofelet (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusing request. Wikipedia is already quite anonymous for users who choose not to reveal personal information, and I am not aware of anything that prevents newer accounts from filing afd entries. I see no reason to assist a new user in filing afds beyond clarifying steps in the process that may be difficult to understand. Dialectric (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to ask for the deletion page via AFD or to personally write the comment and the reason for removal. Not at all mentioning my account. The reason for deleting this and feel free to copy it as a comment. Tornik is part of Zlatibor mountain and not any particular part.There are peaks such as Čigota,small Tornik,Ljuljaš,Tornik...Height top of Tornik not 1502 meters and it is one of the reasons why the page is applied to erase. Height Tornik is not over 2000 meters and it is the norm of high peaks that are supposed to have their own page in relation to the mountains where they are located. In the case of Serbian mountains, all the peaks over 2,000 meters have their own special pages such as Pogled,Pančić's Peak,,Midžor...Tornik is much lower and it is not necessary to allocate a special page of the page Zlatibor. I have therefore submitted an application for deleting pages Tornik. I hope I have your support in deleting unnecessary and redundant pages Tornik. Simply existent page Zlatibor that mentions enhancing the offer is enough. Ok? Randysokofelet (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randysokofelet is an obvious sockpuppet of a user who has been repeatedly socking, over and over, in this odd campaign to delete articles about Serbian mountains. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dialectric I apologize if i did anything wrong, and i will look into the wikipedia policies to make sure that mistakes will not be repeated. Thanks for guiding me!

Vijaitrk (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectric,

I would like to convoy my sincere apologies to the mistakes I made in Approving the page International Academy for Genealogical and Heraldic Studies. I hope you do not take this into a further matter.

Yours Truly

Denver20, please sign your comment. We all make mistakes and I am not looking to punish you for approving the page, but before you approve more pages, I suggest you work on your understanding of policies, particularly the notability policy WP:N. Just reading WP:N probably isn't enough. If you participate in 'articles for deletion' for a few weeks or months, you will see what policy-based arguments are routinely made to keep or delete articles. These will be very similar to the arguments that should be raised in approving new pages, as non-notable pages will often go straight to afd. Another issue is that I see other editors have undone at least one of your speedy deletion attempts for not meeting the criteria you chose. You should reread the criteria for each speedy deletion type carefully before making further speedy nominations. Some articles are not eligible for speedy deletion for a variety of reasons. Dialectric (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check others which are not a WP:RS (if publisher/work has a red wikilink). 183.171.179.75 (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question, and as far as I can tell I have never edited the article 'Alice (Avril Lavigne song)'. Can you clarify what you are looking for here?Dialectric (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Statistics of 2014 - Save the table the first time you open this page, then it is blocked. - : France number 1, Russia 2 : http://www.statista.com/statistics/264670/top-sugar-beet-producers-worldwide-by-volume/ fr:Utilisateur:L'amateur d'aéroplanes 07:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have paywall access to the site, can you provide the source(s) statistica is using for their graph?Dialectric (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used your recommendation for using Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and it is appreciated.Timpicerilo (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety based on the five proposals made at the GMO crops talk page here which you have either commented on or made your own proposal. The Wordsmith and Laser brain have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk)

Hello, You marked the JobScheduler article as requiring citations. I've updated the article and added citations and other references and posted a request for a review on the talk page. I'm posting here to ask if you'd follow up your tagging. Thanks in advance. A-Amos (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working to add citations to the article. While I see you have added quite a few, it looks to me like only 1 source, the 'Magic Quadrant for Workload Automation. Stamford: Gartner, Inc.' ref, is independent WP:RS coverage. To firmly establish notability, it is best to have at least 2 RS sources with significant independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before dismissing them, I would really appreciate it if you would take a look at the citations on which I based my edits in that section, because the Mateen incident has garnered substantial scrutiny not only for G4S's personnel practices, but the security industry's licensing and hiring practices as a whole. You might also find it interesting to review for context, if you have the time, the 70-odd edits to the GEO Group article (almost entirely deletions of material not favorable to GEO) by Niteshift in the last four years. GEO was spun off from G4S 13 years ago after it had purchased Wackenhut, probably because the youth prison component in particular was so troubled. Niteshift has also restored erroneous text that I'd corrected in other sections of the G4S Secure Solutions article, as I noted on the TALK page, as well as restoring very poorly written text that I'd edited. In 2012, shortly before Niteshift started editing that article, GEO employees Abraham Cohen and its spokesperson Pablo Paez, had been caught making extensive edits of material that was negative towards GEO's bottom line, replacing it with the corporation's promotional boiler plate. Thanks. Activist (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Activist, I will take a look at the cites. The issue has now been raised on a dispute resolution noticeboard so hopefully we will get more eyes on the article.Dialectric (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dialectric. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Icelandic composers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Ross. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-

I noticed that you had been involved in working on some of the more controversial content on the Horizon Organic article. On your last edit it looks like you had removed one lawsuit that was dismissed but left the rest of the paragraph intact. I noticed that another user (Freeyourtime) has since completely removed this paragraph. The user has made reference to "information provided by competitors" in their edit comments, inserted wording into the article such as "we introduced our first line of organic milk", and their talk page also has a 'conflict of interest' message regarding the article. It is my belief that this removed content should be restored (I would like to restore the removed information under the 'History' section as seen here: [5]). However I just wanted to get your input first as I think you are much more familiar with the situation than I am.

Thanks! Aka042 (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information you are hoping to restore is already in the article. See the diff comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horizon_Organic&diff=cur&oldid=654293346. It has been slightly rearranged but is all there. Freeyourtime's major edits were all reverted by other editors, and he hasn't made any changes in months.Dialectric (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction to keep in mind is that just because something has been on the page for a while, it might not be backed up by a consensus, but I regret my error. Thanks. -editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.135.120 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for the "strange and interesting topics worth exploring" on your user page. I'm enjoying reading these fascinating topics. Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering... Do you think I should be more pissed off about the fact you're edit warring with me contrary to the bold, revert, discuss cycle, that you're plastering stupid banners on articles that don't need them rather than trying to improve the article, or the fact that you literally chose the wrong big stupid obnoxious banner given your stated concern? If you want to add sources to the article, be my guest. If you want to put banners on pages, do it in your own bloody userspace. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both banners are accurate. BLPs, like all articles, should have independent references. www.wissenburg.org, the only reference currently used in the article, is not independent. Using terms like 'stupid' and 'obnoxious' is not constructive.Dialectric (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they weren't (or were) accurate, I said they weren't needed. And I said you were edit warring, which you've chosen to ignore. Instead, you want to patronise me and chastise me for using the word "obnoxious". Well- thanks. I'm sure Wikipedia is a better place for it... Josh Milburn (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the page from my watchlist. Please tag it to your heart's content. I don't have the time or the energy for this nonsense. (Please feel free to replace the word "nonsense" with something more constructive, if you feel so inclined.) Josh Milburn (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found out about a healthy form of agriculture today, and, throwing caution to the wind, explored Wikipedia's article about it. Unsurprisingly, the 'WP powers that be' were already on to it, and have used the article space to make fun of the process. But I was pleased to see you there, giving it a go, albeit quickly hammered down by the usual suspects. Wikipedia is a laughing stock at this point. People see it as no more reliable or respectable than Bezo's CIA-funded blog, the Washington Post.

Thanks for the smile, petrarchan47คุก 22:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never thought much of Bezos but the Washington Post’s Radley Balko has some excellent stories on flaws in policing and criminal justice in the US.Dialectric (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I removed that section of the Avanade entry as the source is not available any longer and it was over 9 years ago. Please tell why you think it should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaResearcher (talk • contribs) 16:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A reference should not be dismissed just because of a deadlink. You can tag it as a deadlink and/or search internet archives. We have many company articles that have referenced content about notable issues that occured 9+ years ago. You may argue that the inclusion gives WP:UNDUE weight to this specific issue, but that is a subject for discussion prior to removal.Dialectric (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dialectric, thanks for your concern over my user name. I can assure you that it is not offensive if you take no offense. I welcome your assault on truth and health and will continue to fix the page on Organic Certification no matter what you do. It is my sole mission in life to prevent me and those around me from being poisoned by whoever the fuck you work for. That "fuck" is also not offensive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wokethefuckupyesterday (talk • contribs) 13:25, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

The issue is sourcing. Wikipedia requires references for content, and scientific and health content typically uses more specific WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS sources. Content without proper sourcing, particularly in areas of controversy, will likely be removed. Comments suggesting that others are editing on behalf of their employer are not constructive and could get you blocked. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Dialectric (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to thank you for spotting and removing a bit of linkspam posted by 68.4.165.14. I tidied up that user's other linkspam edits. However, there are still several more links to that website in Wikipedia. Most of these seem to have been added by 70.187.136.20. Any advice on how best to handle them? Please WP:PING me in your reply. Thanks, zazpot (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if multiple editors/IPs have recently been adding the link across a range of articles, one option would be to propose adding the site to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. If there haven't been many recent additions, or they are coming from only 1 or 2 IPs, the reviewers at that page may not be willing to add it at this time.Dialectric (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SlimPup Linux (2nd nomination). - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You placed a non-notable tag on Ice Screamers two weeks ago. (It is obviously not notable.) I have nominated it for deletion. You are cordially invited to contribute your views. The Tortfeasor (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to three reviews. Think it may be enough to remove notability tag? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tracking down some RS sourcing. It looks like the article has at least 2 RS refs with significant independent coverage now - that meets the notability criteria that is often raised at AFD, so removing the tag makes sense.Dialectric (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dialectric, this is Guitarhistory writing. I'm hoping we can discuss a section you have deleted twice. Upon your first deletion, the content had been listed on the section for half of a year with no issues or concern. Your stated reason for deletion: "comparison with global population is not a widely used metric for establishing rarity"; this is your personal opinion which I can respect. However, the sources and information referenced to gather & compute this data are valid, verifiable & can to be referenced. You're deleting subject matter based upon your personal opinion. It took a lot of time & calculation to compile that data. I assume you can respect the frustration on my end, by your decision to simply delete a section without providing an alternate method to express rarity. For your reference; I am a professional Musical Instrument historian; my writing(s) & statistical data have been used & reference by NYC's MET & several international institutions. Might I request a solution to this issue & request an alternate method for a metric to establish rarity? The data I used to provide the "rarity" example was information gathered from both Rickenbacker & United Nations. As an FYI, according to Merriam-Webster, the definition of "Rare" is expresses as "seldom occurring or found". Guitarhistory (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Guitarhistory[reply]

My removals were based on established wikipdia style and guidelines, not personal opinion. Find a source that specifically describes Electro Spanish KR as rare and cite that. If that source makes use of some metrics of rarity, those metrics can be quoted in the article. Stradivarius or other rare instrument articles might be helpful as a guide. Wikipedia:Expert editors are an asset to wikipedia, so feel free to list your credentials on your user page, but wikipedia’s style prevails over individual expert’s personal writing style.Dialectric (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that you made a change. Sources cited are not mainstream news papers, articles cited were also not relevant to the discussion and furthermore not directly linked to the living person in mention.

Opening statement - where the subject was mentioned as a major gripe is also uncited.

I would suggest to move these controversies to cover the actual companies that they are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahangbarat (talk • contribs) 11:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dialectric for your comments on my OLES2129 class. This is a 13 week course and we've tried to include so many steps along the way before getting to the point of allowing students to move articles to the mainspace but would welcome any advice you can give us on how we can sequence things better in future. Firstly, we wanted to make sure that they didn't move the mainspace until they'd learned the rules, guidelines and written well developed articles so began with Wikipedia training modules and covered each one in the early weeks. Students chose topics from "requested articles" lists associated with projects and began writing in their sandboxes. They created user/draft articles once they had collected at least 5 reliable sources (and we privileged academic peer review sources) and gave us an assurance that they had enough material to begin writing an article. The next step was to give us a lead section and at least 4 draft sections with descriptions of what they will include in each section, and an annotated bibliogrpahy of their sources. They then submitted a draft of their article (on a Word doc) and reviewed each others articles. So that was actually a 4th step for us. After they considered and acted on the advice of their peers, we did ask them to consider the extent to which their article satisfied the good article criteria and if so, to request Wikipedia:Peer review as a fifth step (and yes we did see that suggestion on a Wikipedia resource page. Many were peer-reviewed very quickly but I'm still looking through the very long list (291). Some were recommended for speedy deletion and/or chastised but in most cases, Wikipedia reviewers very kindly followed the advice at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers page, specifically: "A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize" Again, I would welcome advice on how our other teachers and I can do better and would be honoured if you have time to communicate more on how to make this process smoother. (talk) --Fransplace 21:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying to my question on your user page. I am primarily concerned with the unusual use of Wikipedia:Peer review. Could you link the Wikipedia resource page that suggested using peer review? I might try to change the wording of that resource page to provide more information on the typical process at peer review. Some peer review submissions from your class were malformatted, or didn't include a reason for the request.

I have no experience running courses which edit wikipedia, but have interacted with student editors and instructors on wikipedia. Two suggestions (1)have students complete their reviews of eachother's articles on the article talk pages (or user pages). This can help them improve their use of wikipedia's interface, and give them a record to work from while improving their articles. (2) To avoid confusion, former wikimedia employee Richard Nevell suggests on the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard that students should "include a note on their user page that they are taking part in an educational course"; this probably should include a link to the main course page to centralize discussion of issues. Noting that a user is a student editor on their user page could cut down on some of the chastisement you mention, and direct issues to you rather than to inexperienced students. If you haven't done so already, you may want to start communication with staff from the Wikipedia Education Program such as NSaad (WMF), who hopefully can either offer suggestions or put you in touch with someone in a support role for courses in Australia.Dialectric (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I have a WP article with my name, but in italian WP, not USA.

You reverted my edit, even though she is not a CANADIAN ENGINEER. That has real meaning in Canada, as you well know. It is illegal to call yourself a Canadian Engineer unless you are licenced.

You can say she is FROM Canada, and works in the US with the title of software engineer, but she is not a "Canadian Engineer".

She didn't even claim to be an engineer, only the ad did! https://angel.co/isisanchalee Note that is her own description of the job that made her notable. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is described as a software engineer in the LA times article referenced on her wikipedia page: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-i-look-like-an-engineer-20150804-story.html. For you to claim that she is not in fact an engineer, you would need multiple reliable sources stating this. Otherwise, it is original research. Dialectric (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will then remove the claim she is a "Canadian engineer", and clarify she is from Canada, works as a software engineer in the US. Your answer reflected EXACTLY what I stated above! The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I haven't used the website much, but Articles in Muslimheritage.com are mostly written by Ph.D scholars. I have never seen an author in muslimheritage.com who's not a big scholar. It would be good if you checked out the website. It is very reliable and every article is referenced. And if you think that Muslim's are just claiming this stuff, then actually, most authors on the website, are non-Muslims. The revealer (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Muslimheritage.com and while some of its content is sourced properly, some content makes false or exaggerated claims, easily proven wrong by multiple scholarly publications that do meet WP:RS. This is not about Muslims or non-Muslims. The issue is that this website is not of consistent quality, and should not be considered a reliable source to use in references.Dialectric (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectric I don't understand. muslimheritage.com is not an anonymous website, some articles are by FSTC but most have author names. Almost all have references. On the question of reliability, the author and references should be checked, not the website name, I think. The revealer (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that there was a page two of the article!! : )
Thanks for making improvements! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this "History of Herbalism" I see two continents represented and many continents ignored: Africa, North America, South America, Australia. Not to mention small island nations. How can this be considered a comprehensive history if the knowledge of this many people is ignored (read: deleted). Even if you say, "By 'herbalism' we mean 'western herbalism'" you are ignoring the fact that much of the knowledge that we consider to be "European" has roots in Africa. These continents are so close; how could we believe that knowledge was not crossing the Mediterranean? Not to mention that contemporary American herbalism draws huge amounts of information from Native American people who's rich knowledge of this land goes back thousands and thousands of years. I am not a scholar, I do not have sources (yet!) to cite this information on this page. But I am an herbalist and to me it seems that this 'history' page is basically a sham as long as it supports the deletion of this many people from its record. Murray.Molly (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is heavily dependent on sources. Once you have sources that cover the content you discuss, we can discuss how to add those to the article. We do have articles like Category:Plants used in traditional Native American medicine, Native American ethnobotany and Traditional African medicine that may already use some sources that are relevant.Dialectric (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I see you already have a section about this. You ask me to say something at talk, I've done that, besides you, no one has anything to add it seems. If I wait around on talk pages, nothing gets done. I see the same pattern on dozens of talk pages, all the talk happened in 2007, then people stop responding. Meanwhile articles get mangled by special interest editors. Leo Breman (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On lower-traffic articles responses typically take days or weeks. If you start making changes within 24 hours and say 'no one had anything to add', it is possible you will be reverted for not having enough of a discussion. If you want to speed up discussion, you could contact the last few editors to the article on their talk pages. In general, adding referenced content will get you less scrutiny than removing content. A removal is an implicit statement that some other editor was wrong, and you should make a reasoned argument why the content needs to be removed. If you want to add images and add referenced content to intensive farming, or any other article, I encourage you to do so. I will discuss your split proposal on intensive farming the article page.Dialectric (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, sorry if I act so boldly, hehe. Okay, I'll wait a bit. I haven't actually removed too much, many references that don't reference whatever is being said in the text, or too much editorialising, POV or not. I moved the stuff on healthiness if pasture-fed food to Grass fed, something about history of collectivisation of agribusiness in the USA to the History of agriculture, and just removed two of the three paragraphs history of rice in a certain Korean civilisation, as that information is already has three articles dedicated to it. All this shouldn't be too controversial= I'm expressly leaving text which can later be moved to an article on Industrial or Factory farming, and not trying to confuse issues= synthesizing they call that round here, apparently. Okay, I'll see if I can track down some recent editors. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dialectric,

hope everything is fine with yourself at this time, I don't want to bother you too much, because I'm sure you're busy, like so many other genuinely committed editors, as I presume you to be.

"@Dialectric I don't see where in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists it shown "that inline citations are sufficient for list articles", you could provide the short-cut as to the actual part of the page indicates this. Armoracia-1 (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)"

is a copy of an entry I made to our debate/diagreement/argument @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_discoveries#Scope_of_the_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_discoveries&action=history

you see I linked Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and "that inline citations are sufficient for list articles" is a quotation of something written by yourself (Dialectric)

I don't see either the link to the wikipedia page or the statement you made of inline citations are sufficient for list articles in the Talk page discussion.

01:31, 22 September 2019 is the edit made by Onetwothreeip "Scope of the article: new section"

14:36, 22 September 2019‎ is your first entry to the discussion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_discoveries&oldid=917158250#reversion_of_01:33,_22_September_2019

15:25, 22 September 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_discoveries&oldid=917165989#reversion_of_01:33,_22_September_2019 shows my linking of the wikipedia page Stand alone lista and the quotation, but doesn't show you having added anything to quote or a link to Stand-alone lists. The reason I wanted to mention this to you Dialectric is because I didn't know Stand-alone lists existed until you included the link within the discussion (apart from the fact my message shows a quotation, and now there is no indication I am able to see of you having added anything to quote)

https://www.google.com/search?q=a+priori+google+books&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB747GB759&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4zKyC1-bkAhWBsXEKHY8LBQsQ_AUIGCgB&biw=1024&bih=657

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m1YsiiF0CrsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+priori+google+books&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifz4iF1-bkAhXPVBUIHWoNDxgQ6AEIYzAJ#v=onepage&q=a%20priori%20google%20books&f=false

Armoracia-1 (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armoracia-1, Thank you for taking up the discussion here. All of the policies and guidelines can be difficult for newer editors, and I understand that your goal was and is to improve the encyclopedia. It is clear that English is not your first language, and you may find it easier to edit on the wikipedia for your native language. If you are set on continuing to work on the English Wikipedia, understand that I have no interest in debating you. I am offering you information from my experience, gleaned from editing here for over 10 years. If you choose to ignore that information, that is your choice to make. If you look at my contribution history, you will see that I focus more on improving articles than discussing policy. You are relatively new here, and you may find the Wikipedia:Teahouse useful as a resource for discussing how best to contribute.Dialectric (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia. How does one actually get authorization to edit a page. I have been threatened with being banned for editing Paul Stamets page by stating the obvious fact that he is a mycologist. I noticed that you were the first to agree with that edit awhile back.

Is there a voting process built into this? Keithdyer101 (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith, in general, you can edit any page as long as you have a reference to support the content you are adding. If your edit gets removed by another editor, the usual approach is to discuss the edit on the talk page. With Paul Stamets, I started a WP:RFC about this specific issue on Talk:Paul Stamets. An RFC / Request for Comment can be a useful way to get progress on content that other editors are opposing even when there are references supporting it, but overuse of the process could get an editor some negative pushback. I should request a formal close for that rfc. The majority of commenters support inclusion of the 'mycologist' descriptor, and there are numerous refs that use that term to describe stamets, but some editors will keep removing the term until an RFC close or some other admin action requires them to do otherwise.Dialectric (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article APT from Yahoo! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dialectric (talk · contribs) - I was very grateful to see your interventions at the Judicial Crisis Network page. Unfortunately, the abusive editor has continued to behave in a disruptive fashion. I've tried addressing the situation twice on the JCN talk page and three times on the editor's own talk page to no avail, and I just wanted to touch base with you to get your thoughts before escalating further - hope that's ok with you! With all my thanks for your perspective Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't checked the timestamps to see if Seoul1989 broke WP:3RR, but they are certainly edit warring, even if they have avoided a technical violation, and as such could reasonably be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you (also) broke 3RR in reverting /restoring your edits, some admins may just lock the article for a week, or, less likely, give both of you a 24hr block. You have opened a discussion on talk to discuss the additions, which is a good approach, and Seoul1989 hasn't responded there. I agree that Seoul1989's brief edit summaries are insufficient for removing references, and most admins will probably agree and warn them accordingly if notified. Dialectric (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dialectric (talk · contribs) - I appreciate your attention to this article. I would like to discuss your quickness to remove the most recent addition to the evolution of this instrument, that follows guidelines in^[1] It is important to document the publication of new music on an instrument with very little publication. You removed the headers for Martin Woodhouse, Joseph Ehrenpreis, and other contributors to the success of the Brahms Guitar. "rv promotional edits - would need independent refs to show album notability". There is a lack of congruity, when other recordings are left up on the page (with even less credibility, a soundcloud link.) Thanks Ladybug632 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss changes before restoring them. Repeated reverts / edit warring should be avoided and can get you blocked - see the note on your talk page. [[For external links, see Wikipedia:External links which says in the first few sentences that ELs should not be included in the body. While a page about a musician might have an external links section at the end with recordings that haven't been covered by secondary sources, this is a page about an instrument, not an artist; here, recordings should have demonstrated notability with coverage in independent sources. Soundcloud is not a reliable source and shouldn't be used as a reference. Dialectric (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you were involved in the deletion discussion here. I feel like it's a mistake to group screen recording and screenshot software together. One creates video as an output and the other create images. Some do both and some only do one or the other. I'd like to see Wikipedia capture some of the nuances in software categories. Do you have any idea on how to proceed from this point? I'm still relatively new and don't know much about any of the processes besides making edits and doing ticky tack administrative stuff in terms of handling needed citations, tagging articles that needed to be improved but haven't been, etc.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have the articles Screenshot, Screencast, and Comparison of screencasting software. If you see inaccurate information in any of these, and have a reliable source that supports a different position, that would be a good place to start. It is possible to get articles undeleted or restored to a user's edit space for further work, at Wikipedia:Deletion review, though I am not very familiar with this specific process either.Dialectric (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored article My Bed Is Too Big. It top-10-charted in Germany and Austria, and it is considered one of Blue System's signature songs. So there may be sources out there to expand and revamp the article. I may be doing some work on it later this week. Kind regards --Kuatrero (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dialectric! [To be read somewhat tongue in cheek.] I'm glad to see Mura CMS is on your watch list of software for potential WP:AfD. While I would like to see a quality article on this topic, there are few decent sources available other than the company themselves. Of course, much of this has to do with the fact it is built on ColdFusion. Despite everyone in the world thinking ColdFusion is a dead language, it has a decent following, though not much visibility.

I don't have enough experience as an editor to feel confident enough to propose the article be deleted. However, after reading said article, if one can call it reading, I've concluded it is too much like reading the ingredients on a box twigs, leaves and granola cereal. There are too many lists of features and very few complete sentences. And let's be honest, it makes one wonder if the company asked would-be employees to demonstrate their knowledge of the software by editing the article. Perhaps I've been too critical, too harsh. This is only my opinion, of course, having been a naive, new editor who knows all too well the WP:WMF maxim Please do not bite the newcomers isn't strictly nor dutifully adhered to by every administrator with the bright, shiny buttons. Cheers! Kimdorris (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed a lot of the unreferenced content from Mura CMS. I might afd it eventually if refs aren't added. Watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software can give you a sense of how afds for software articles go, and what content is expected to avoid deletion. Commenting on open afd's is quicker and easier than starting new ones.Dialectric (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I appreciate the tips. I'm always looking to level up my WMF game. Thank you. Kimdorris (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Amazing work on your dark theme. Thank you

User:Sargeant45

Hi! I saw that you flagged the page for the Dream of the Red Chamber Award for notability in Sept 2019. This is a well-known and well-regarded international prize for Chinese literature. It really deserves a full rewrite, but for the time being I've added a few links to news coverage of the award winners, where possible using articles published in English. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if this is sufficient to remove the notability flag? Beckminster (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working to improve the article. You are more knowledgable about this prize than I, so I will defer to your judgement about notability. I have no objection to your removing the tags.Dialectric (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you! Beckminster (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have updated Emma Sinclair with correct formatting, sources and references to improve on the previous version that is poorly written with poor formatting, sources and references. Please can you help me to keep this version current. Thank you. Keeley Dann (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss the article content, please start a discussion at Talk:Emma Sinclair. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dialectric, I work for ADNOC and I recently posted an edit request on Talk:Sultan Al Jaber, who is the head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. I noticed that you are a contributor to the Wiki article Petroleum Industry, so I thought you would have an interest in implementing the edit request, which contains straightforward edits, mostly updating the article. Thanks so much. CB at ADNOC (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you edited Foshan No.1 High School's page. I am the original editor of this article, which I translated from its Chinese version years ago. I noticed that you have done similar things to multiple articles of schools in non English speaking countries. These articles are translated from the versions of their original languages, in which you could find reference from. If you think you have problems on this issue, you should mark it for future editors to fix instead of deleting the entire paragraph. Due to substantial differences between education systems across the world, what you thought to be redundant or irrelevant may be actually important under their context. If you don't understand their language and their topics, you should probably refrain from editing these pages.

Regards, PeisongZou (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is clear on requiring references for disputed content, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Content needs to be referenced here, on English wikipedia. The references need not be in English. Removing unreferenced content has nothing to do with cultural differences. Also note that when copying pages from other language wikis, you must provide an attribution edit summary per WP:TFOLWP, which you failed to do for your translation of Foshan No.1 High School.Dialectric (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made some further edits to the Dan Buettner article, e.g., adding authors and filling out citations where possible, but it continues to be a morass of unsourced information. Noted, for instance that neither his DOB or place of birth are sourced. Please, look in and see if I missed anything (or add sources if you might know of them). I tried to be respectful of all earlier edits. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:F5:F8DF:E6F2:B463:AB99 (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made in some changes to make it neutral with facts and citations. Can you please help me understand what went wrong? Thanks. Simonriley1994 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for working to improve the article, but please be more cautious with removals of referenced content. You removed any mention of the BarBri / Kapan settlement without discussion. Though the ref was poor, it would have been better to remove it and tag with a cite needed or do a quick search and find WP:RS refs like https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/business/yourmoney/25bar.html which cover this settlement. You also removed citations including Massachusetts government docs, and NYTimes and Washington post articles about employee allegations. Removals of WP:RS sources should include a rationale in the edit summary or the talk page that details why these sources should not be used. 'Fact correction' is not sufficient'.Dialectric (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for these. I will improve my edits based on your explanation. Starting with this. Can I ping you for help? Simonriley1994 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have complied some information to edit on this page. As suggested by you, I would like to discuss it first and see the possibilities.

I am not changing/removing/editing any reference here but including the answers to all the controversies. Most of them does not involve the settlement and some of them are poorly sourced and even poorly written, solely for the purpose of creating a bias. I would like to improve the page but need your guidance on how to approach. I also would like to share before editing the page. Need your guidance. Thanks. Simonriley1994 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I want to thank you for the pleasant dark theme. I suggest you add a warning on it suppressing the language list though, maybe with the information that removal of lines 1223 to 1233 will make it show up again. I was very confused when I suddenly could not find the box even though I had not changed any settings. Maybe it will help someone else in the future. Roffi (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Dialectric for the dark mode theme. it's the only one so far that works smoothly for me. if i understand correctly there's a tried-and-tested and officially integrated dark mode for the mobile wikipedia app but not for desktop site. amazing. thanks also to @Roffinator3000 because i switch languages regularly so thanks again to you both. ~ Johnfreez (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I recently updated the theme to add support for Vector 2022. In the most recent version, the code to page hide elements I don't use (including the language list) is no longer in the theme css file and has been moved to User:Dialectric/common.css. Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you undid an edit I just did on the Riverkeeper page. I am new to Wikipedia and I did not mean to change the lead, just a minor change in the text. I'm sorry about the confusion and thanks for correcting it.

I have some edits I would like to do to this page. How do you recommend that I go about it?

Many thanks! MariliaGabrielaCosta (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the response. If you make edits that add WP:RS sources and well-referenced content, you should be able to edit the article directly without issue. If you want to remove sources already in the article or reword the lede, I suggest that you discuss these changes on the talk page first and wait 24hrs or so to see if other editors have feedback on your proposed changes. This isn't a requirement, but waiting for feedback is a good way to avoid having your edits reverted. Also, please don't mark edits that remove refs as minor - this mark should really only be used for small formatting or grammar changes, per Help:Minor edit.Dialectric (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank so much for the feedback. I'll follow your directions and hopefully will be fine. MariliaGabrielaCosta (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just added some references to the Theodore Porter page but I am unsure if your 2011 stub 'needs more references' can be removed. Can you please check? All the best. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the page. The refs provided look like quality WP:RS coverage, and I have removed the 'needs references' tag. Dialectric (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dialectric, I just wrote something in the Talk:pesticide residue page. Please have a look. Bosula (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dialectric,

I posted a message for you but have not received a response.[6] There has been quite a bit of coverage of Realizing the Dream in the mainstream press. My original entry had solid references and more details, but another senior editor Bilorv told me to remove them, so I did. Just seeking clarification since I'm being told two contradictory things2601:545:8001:C20:408E:9373:BFC4:D8AC (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the Goodnight Scholars Program has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodnight Scholars Program. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]