Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:40, 21 March 2011

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is Aquib American Muslim's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days

On Misplaced Pages

Interesting paper

A general conversation on Misplaced Pages processes

Truth Lies Here

An article in the Atlantic

Reply Re: Deletion of article on Islamic metaphysics (per WP:Jagged_85_cleanup)

I guess they deleted that article outright. I know little about this; I was hoping to learn something about the subject. I have only been following the discussion upthread on the talk page for medieval Islamic science, they identfied the five pages that were blanked. By the person who blanked all five pages on Islamic science, philosophy, etc. under a ruling of some sort. allowing them to do so on the grounds that the primary contributor was misusing sources. I realize this Jagged guy did not help the case if he was the one who was adding a lot of false content to the article. But that is not grounds for deleting the whole article is it? Probably the same folks who go around trying to tag all interaction of Christianity and Judaism and science with the pseudoscience tag. They probably assume religious people are all ignorant creationists who didn't historically believe in the scientific method. But still, Islamic metaphysics? You trying to tell me there is no such thing? I don't believe it. (I'm being sarcastic) Yclept:Berr (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, here is the discussion upthread I got my info from: "My other fear is, of course, once the article is deleted it will not be rebuilt. Deleting information is far, far, far easier than contributing. It takes months, if not years to write an article. It takes a second to delete it. The user in question (User:J8079s) seems to be going around deleting articles, and has made little effort of building articles. As examples: Islamic ethics, Islamic metaphysics, Physics in medieval Islam and Islamic economics in the world were deleted, and no effort was made to rebuild them (some of the deletions have since been reverted). I see that there is a pattern of deleting and leaving - not deleting and rebuilding. Thus, an article can very well be built from scratch in user space. But it shouldn't replace an entire article prematurely. Bless_sins 5 October 2010 (UTC)" Yclept:Berr (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going to try to collect more information at the Jag discussion page. -Aquib (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Mathematics in medieval Islam

Thank you so very much, Aquib. Unfortunately, I have been stopped before I could finish the review, but maybe one day I will. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Aquib, I replied to your most recent message suggesting you confer with Pjoef since he actually attempted to review and correct the statements made in the article. My preference of course would be for a RfC or AfC covering all the pages affected by the Jag cleanup, per my talk page reply:

I would more happily participate in a global process that allows us to suggest remedies that apply to all pages in question, since at the very least folks cannot accuse me of having an "axe to grind". An AfC listing the pages that were deleted or stubbed in response to the Jag cleanup would be a great place to start. From the two talk pages for math and science, I listed the ones mentioned upthread on the talk page for Talk:Science in medieval Islam. Does anyone have a complete list?

Also note that the existence of a {{Verification failed}} / {{Not specifically in source}} template, used to tag individual claims in an article, makes the entire Jagged 85 verdict (to completely stub all pages on the subject until they are rewritten) obsolete and unnecessary.

Like I said, I'll happily participate, but I can only speak to what I've seen and read in the recent discussion, not to past shenanigans. And I'll actively second any request for a new AfC (?? I'm not familiar with the correct forum) addressing all the "Jagged" pages. Part of the problem is that the guy who actually went and outright deleted / stubbed some of the pages was a hit-and-run and I can't tell what his motives were. (me) Yclept:Berr (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks and best regards to you both. -Aquib (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ranting

Please stop the constant accusations of bad faith: restore last good version by Pjoef. Other editors falling down on WP:AGF, WP:Consensus, WP:BULLY, spurious and unreasonable objections, lack of specifics, abusing an RFC/U etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

These articles should not be used as hostages, and the editors who care about them should not be stiff-armed or jerked about on their leashes. It's a question of civility. Civility fosters the collaboration necessary to move the encyclopedia forward.

Your treatment of Pjoef is unacceptable. Is this how you weed out potential contributors with views other than your own towards the approach to the Jag cleanup? Swoop in on them like hawks? If we had more volunteers like Pjoef, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Maybe you should be helping out on another portal. Personally, I hope to return to my interest in articles on the gardens of Islam... someday.

-Aquib (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You make much of your desire to contribute article content, but actually spend most of your time unprofitably on talk pages. I agree that the articles should not be used as hostages; but they aren't being so used; only you seem to have this odd attitude. I care about those articles; and I do wish you would stop trying to stiff-arm me; as for the leashes stuff: what are you on about? As for Pj: I have no idea what you are talking about? Please cease this random insult-flinging William M. Connolley (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are saying you honestly have no idea what I am talking about. That is unfortunate, but it does explain a few things. -Aquib (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying I have no idea why you think my "treatment of Pjoef is unacceptable" William M. Connolley (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to concentrate on the content dispute for now, if that is possible. You have not yet seriously responded to my questions regarding my source for Tusi's use of a derivative, or my reference to the article on the 1977 Turing Prize as an explanation of dynamic functional algebra. I know the term dynamic functional algebra is debatable; in fact, that is my point. The source on Tusi, however, goes straight to the heart of the matter. -Aquib (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. In that case, the onus on you is to stop saying unjustified things like treatment of Pjoef is unacceptable, then I won't complain about you saying them. As to the lack of response: you are wrong: . Ruud has also pointed out your error: . I think you really need to step back a little, and think, and then realise that dynamic functional algebra doesn't exist as a term; that Jagged made it up; and that you don't have the relevant domain knowledge to even realise that it is meaningless. Google searches are no substitute for understanding William M. Connolley (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Coming from a background in information technology, it is easy for me to draw these inferences with regards to dynamic functional algebra. Looks like your criticism of the Tusi assertion is one side of a legitimate academic debate. I have my source, you have yours. -Aquib (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't seem to have any problem drawing these inferences. What you haven't yet realised is that your inferences are wrong: you are supporting Jagged's invention of a meaningless term by googling refs, not by actually reading and understanding the refs. An IT background will not help you understand the maths William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't help noticing you prefer to discuss dynamic rather than Tusi. I believe the dynamic was in a heading on a bit of the Tusi if I am not mistaken and you follow me. Point being I may still have you on Tusi. That's actually quite an interesting factoid as well. -Aquib (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You've descended to obfustication. The term dynamic functional algebra is meaningless. Jagged introduced it by not understanding the subject or his sources. If you're going to stop defending it, that would be great. If you could admit your error and apologise for the time you've wasted that would be even better William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't repeat the mistake of thinking you will get rid of me easily. -Aquib (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: RFC/U for Mathematics in medieval Islam

Salaam, Aquib. Assuming that someone is actively working to rewrite the article, which seems to be the case, I don't mind the stubbing. So I'd say an RFC/U at this moment would be disruptive. I'd suggest that you wait for a couple of weeks, let the new article mature a bit, then start introducing any clean/useful parts from the Jagged version later. Now, for articles that have been stubbed a few weeks or months ago, but still remain with very little activity, you may want to start reintroducing/cleaning some parts from the Jagged version now. I'm sure other people will show up to help or disrupt such efforts, but it would be better than nothing.

In any case, at this moment I'm more worried about the "careless" editing of the Jagged Cleanup efforts. I've seen small parts of articles being deleted even though any careful editor would have rephrased. See, for one example, , which left a gap in the questions discussed, and should have been rephrased from the source cited. Also this which deleted the word Ijazah without any justification, and didn't even bother to cleanup the Jagged-like "fake citation". These edits showed up on my watch list, but I'm afraid it's being done to other articles too. I believe such careless and selective editing would possibly be useful as RFC/U material, and deserves a bit more attention. Wiqixtalk 22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WaSalaam Wiqi, thanks for the note. I've also been getting other feedback regarding the advisability and usefulness of an RFC/U on this incident at Mathematics in medieval Islam. I'm going to call off this new RFC/U. But I am still concerned about the stubbings, moves and redirects. We don't really know how many have happened, so if they have happened, we don't know where they are. Some folks have been helpful in this regard, others either are not listening, don't know or won't say. Science in medieval Islam was stubbed around 6 months ago, and it is still stubbed.

So I'm going to focus on the problem with the Jag RFC/U and put together an appeal for the Arbitration Committee. I know there are problems with Jag's edits, but we need some limits, some oversight or at least visibility, to be sure reasonable care is taken in the cleanup.

Thanks for bringing the editing problems to my attention, please let me know if anything else comes up. I have a few good examples of my own as well.

-Aquib (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC request Parallel to your ArbCom request

Dear Aquib: Since you, Wiqi, pjoef et al. seem to agree that we need to get away from personalizing the discussion about individual editors' edits (unless they prevent everyone from broadening the issue, of course), I saw your note announcing the ArbCom request at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and asking that future talk page discussion on the issue be posted there. Accordingly, I have posted a request for a new RfC parallel or to supersede the old Jagged RfC (the new RfC need not eliminate the old RfC since the issues are different now and not confined to one user, so I'm pretty this can proceed regardless of how ArbCom handles it.)

A Copy of My Request is located on Pjoef's page (I'd post it here too, but I already posted it on the Jagged 85 page here.

I also asked them how to start one. I'm unlikely to get much help on that page given what I say is the rationale for an new RfC, but I imagine it simply entails copying the bullet points made in that reply and posting them on the main RfC page using the template provided?

The problem is, I'd still need help canvassing the relevant Wiki Projects (Middle Ages, Islam, History of Science, Mathematics, Philosophy) because their input is what is missing and desperately needed. In fact, I wouldn't know how to do that part, which is kind of crucial to avoid moving past the same-old, same-old debate.

Anyone know how / willing to canvass the relevant Wikiprojects if I go ahead with the RfC?

Keep in mind that the new RfC could factor into how ArbCom handles the issue (I don't know how, but positively I hope.) Yclept:Berr (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yclept, my appeal to ArbCom will be to modify the Jag RFC/U, and I have the material for the initial appeal. It is coming along well although 500 words is a small space to word the initial appeal and I need to back it up with diffs. It is a holistic appeal, which would address many of the same areas yours probably will. Since I have been involved for a year, it will have a lot of material. If you turn up more useful information it could possibly feed into the ArbCom appeal, although it might cause some confusion among the community. Would you like to see a rough draft of the appeal? I can email it to you. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just let me know if ArbCom considers itself the proper forum to modify a pre-existing RFC, because my feeling (just a hunch) is that they would want to start a new RFC either user-based or issue-based (probably not both), or else keep the existing RFC with mission unchanged. And if that's the case it's easier to just propose one, isn't it? Can the relevant wikiprojects be canvassed by ArbCom? I'm not familiar with the exact scope of what they do. I've had a major work issue come up in Real Life that may take me back out of the discussion at least for awhile, so I may not see your reply. But I agree you guys know much more about what's going on with this issue, I'm just not sure if the current approach will work. Yclept:Berr (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Hi, I've removed your request because it blank. If you have something that you need ArbCom to look at, re-submit your request, but fill in the details. At minimum, they'd need to know who is involved and what the dispute concerns before they can consider helping you. You can use the preview button if you like to view the blank request and then fill in the details from there. <Casename> at the top should be replaced by the name of the case (for example, if you were taking me to ArbCom, it would be titled HJ Mitchell), In username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one should be replaced with your username and the others with the usernames of the other people involved. If you need a hand, feel free to contact me or one of ArbCom's clerks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages: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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You've notified yourself, how sweet. I've removed the "WMC" account - clearly, WMC is going to say the same thing as me. If you really insist you can put it back William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)