Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:11, 22 October 2008

I will usually reply on this page to messages posted here.
I make it a practice to watchlist talk pages that I post to — if I have posted on your talk page feel free to reply there.

Archives

User talk:Mdd 2004-06 User talk:Mdd 2007 User talk:Mdd 2008

Why keep irrelevant comments on the Computer Graphics talk page?

These comments pertain to a discussion that essentially took place on a different page. Why do you feel the need to keep them on the Computer Graphics talk page? They only serve to confuse new editors --- especially the notice about the page being focused on academic computer graphics! This is exactly what you wanted to change, so why are you keeping it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to get rid of it again then. It just doesn't make sense why it should be there! I imagine you'll cite some minutia of Misplaced Pages policy to explain why those comments need to be kept. I wish you would just take a step back and think for yourself for a moment: why do we need to keep these old comments around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Systemology?

Do you have an explanation for the fact (?) of "systemology" having only minimal acceptance in the English language, while in say Dutch "systeemkunde" appears to be quite normal? English doesn't seem capable of reaching beyond "systems theory," why? -- Iterator12n 19:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, interesting question. I have a few thougths about this

• In Dutch the terms "systeemkunde" is not quite normal. A bit more accepted is "systeemleer", but the regular term most people know is "systeemtheorie". "Systeemkunde" and "systeemleer" are translations of the term systems engineering.
• Isn't English capable of reaching beyond "systems theory". What about systems science, systemics, systems thinking, systems philosophy...!?
• Also with the List of types of systems theory I more or less investigated the divergence in the "systems theory" concept. In English "systems theory" may seem like a regular term, in systems science it sometimes seems to me taht every scientist is working on his own systems theory.

Maybe these thoughts answer some of question? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They do, to a large degree. Still, terms like "systems philosophy" are composites, therefore (on my personal scale) to be frowned on, somewhat. I have to think about systemics, sounds natural, much more than systemology. Thanks. -- Iterator12n 20:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Data visualization page

Hi Marcel! I looked at the Data visualization page and had some thoughts on new material, which I put in the talk page. I looked at the history and it looks you're past the main restructuring, so hopefully my edits won't get in the way... but if you'd rather I leave this article alone for a bit, let me know. I'm happy to discuss directions for this article on its talk page further... --Infografica (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work

		The Original Barnstar
		Computer graphics is the most improved article I've seen thus far. Just amazing. Dhatfield (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic effort

I am probably doing this wrong. But I wanted to say that you've made a fantastic effort Roger Harnden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerharnden (talk • contribs) 11:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you. Next time your can sign you post on talk pages with ~~~~, which will automatically shows your username and time and date. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical diagram

On 16 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mathematical diagram, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Theories

Category:Theories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Béla H. Bánáthy.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Béla H. Bánáthy.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is replaced by the Image:Béla H. Bánáthy.jpg. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Transferring images to Commons

Hello Mdd,

I'm an admin at the German wikipedia. You've transferred several diagrams from there to Commons recently. I've looked over those transfers in order to delete the local file versions afterwards, and I've noticed that in many cases information pertaining to those images was not correctly transferred. You often attributed wrong licenses to them, labelling them as being as being released into the public domain e.g., when in fact they were licensed as GFDL. In one case, you attributed the image to another user. Please be more careful when transferring images to Commons. The Move-to-commons assistant might be helpful. Regards --Rosenzweig (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. I noticed you made some additions to the images I recently updated from the German Misplaced Pages to Commons. Now I question if your edits here are really needed. For a lot of images we are talking about here is the rule: "Diese Datei erreicht nicht die für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz nötige Schöpfungshöhe". Now the German users sometimes claim GNU licence and sometimes they don't. See for example here, here and here. This doesn't make sense to me. Now I admit I have uploaded the images under {{PD-user-w|projectcode|projectname|username}}, but next time I can use the {{GFDL-user-w|projectcode|projectname|username}} some more.

I personnaly would like to refert most of the changes you made those last 18 to 20 description. I think the initial description is much more clear. For example this is more clear then with your edits here. For you it seems the most important that the image came from the German Misplaced Pages, and you express this three times: in the source -, date - and author - description. I personnaly think the most important thing is that Grubaer made it. With the edits you made, I think, that simple fact becomes rather unclear that Grubear made the image. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think at all that Gubaer's authorship is unclear. What is unclear about Author: Gubaer and Gubaer at the German language Misplaced Pages, the copyright holder of this work?

The most important thing is not "that the image came from the German Misplaced Pages", if the image were originally from the English or any other Misplaced Pages, then that would be the information given. The big problem with your uploads is that they lack information. You say the image comes from the German Misplaced Pages, that it was made by a certain user and uploaded on a certain date. You don't say that it had a different name originally, as was the case for several images - making it difficult to access the original file logs at the original Misplaced Pages.

One can of course dispute whether any of these files do have Schöpfungshöhe, coming to the conclusion that the correct license would be PD-ineligible. But please only change the license accordingly after you have transferred the original information correctly, and do not use license tags that are simply incorrect. This is not a question of using "the {{GFDL-user-w|projectcode|projectname|username}} some more", this is simply a question of transferring the correct information. What you were often doing was actually inventing licenses. You use a license tag giving the impression that the original uploader had released this file into the public domain, when in fact he has not!

The format used now in the desciption is the format one gets when using the Commonshelper bot. It is designed to give all the necessary information demanded by various licenses that can be used on Commons (GFDL, most prominently). It may be a bit repetitive, but it makes sure all the necessary information is there. Regards --Rosenzweig (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree I shouldn't change the giving licences, even if they make little sense. I will try to avoid it next time. I however don't agree the Commonshelper bot/and your presentation gives the right information. I think it is just confusing for any outsiders, who wants to just use the image. Now for me this is an administrative thing... and my priorities are elsewhere. And bye the way, I try not to give files a different name on purpose. I sometimes make mistakes. I am sorry. But I still think you are not improving the source/data/author descriptions you make. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the 'further reading' link you just added to Sleep. Fascinating stuff! --Hordaland (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That link is their since 2006, see here. I just made the link to Yaneer Bar-Yam, who I think is a fascinating scientist who deserves our attention. Now I am glad this draw your attention. Maybe you can add some things about your findings to the Yaneer Bar-Yam page. This would please me very much. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

balloon calculus

Hi, Marcel. I'm a novice round here, but very keen to publicise a diagramming idea for calculus. Please visit http://www.ballooncalculus.org. I'm waiting to hear back from a guy behind the calculus pages, to see if I might be allowed a link there, but perhaps you might be interested, as a diagrammer? I suppose my drawings are a species of Hasse diagram, though I'm not sure! Grateful for any comments. Perhaps I could even make an article, and submit it for linking to your mathematical diagrams page? In that case I should perhaps want to describe it more formally and show that it has some kinds of formal validity... I'm guessing. Anyway, grateful if you have the time to look. Thanks, Tom Royall Espressobongo (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I have taken a look, and I think Misplaced Pages is not the place to present this work or even add links to your original work. Misplaced Pages has the policy not to present original research, but only work, that is allready presented in scientific media and referenced by independent scientific sources. This means we are only talking about the existing science and not all new initiatieves. I am sorry. I wish you all the best with your work. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks for taking a look.Espressobongo (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Marcel

Actually, I was wondering what I could do for you guys. I'm into robotics and AI, but I'm also the coordinator for copyediting for 0.7; are there any articles in the 0.7 selection that already have good sourcing but need copyediting? (Feel free to reply here.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have copy edited most of the articles in the field of systems science myself recently, with the introduction of fields in the Wikiproject, see here. I guess I have an other 200 to 500 articles to go in the field of systems theory and systems engineering, but this is some thing I wnat to finish myself.

I do have some remarks about the 0.7 version and the selection made, see my comments here. There are some changes I would like in that selection, but I have made the time to look into this. I in fact was planning to let it pass. But maybe you can advice me what to do here?

I noticed you are a member of the Good Article WikiProject, and this also makes me wonder. I haven't seem to have the ability yet to lift articles from a B level to a good article status. Lanquage does is a problem here. It would be nice to exhange some ideas about this too. Take for example Herbert Simon. This is a subject I think has potential. Ok enough. Let me know, what you think. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marcel, I'll be happy to help with this stuff, I'll probably have time to get to it later today. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If I understand right, SelectionBot is saying correctly which articles are and which are not tagged by your Wikiproject. If you would like for Herbert Simon, for instance, to be listed in Wikiproject Systems, just edit the talk page and follow the format used by the other wikiprojects to add your wikiproject to the list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I tagged that article with a systems banner (I forgot). Thanks -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you like for me to start with Chaos theory, which gets the most monthly hits according to your first link above, or with Herbert Simon? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is for you to decide. I am just interested in what you are capable of. I wouldn't go straight to the top at once, if you know what I mean. If you want a testcase, you could also take the Debora Hammond article. I have try to nominate it as a good article, but didn't had the abilities to get this done. Are you for example capable of improving that article. If you do, I will contact Debora Hammond and ask here for some pictures. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not for me to say. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Impressive. Take Debora Hammond as a start an advice me what to do next to get a good article status. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That article isn't one of the WP:V0.7 articles, and the deadline is coming up quickly. We're trying to focus especially on the most-read articles; I'll start with Chaos theory. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had a ton of work dumped on my head (day job), so I will be a little slower than planned. Btw, one WP:SYSTEMS article gets 4,000,000 hits: Wiki. It's a delisted GA, so I'll probably tackle that one first. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Notice that I did removed the Wiki article from the WikiProject Systems. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm really busy, I will be spending less time at Misplaced Pages, and I won't have time to get to most of this stuff. Sorry. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Software development conflict

I'm not concerned with how you want to define software engineering as long as you don't try to oversimplify software development and all it's related disciplines, some which have little to do with engineering. If you want to merge your template at the bottom of the page with the software development process as the title, we can delete the old template at the top of the page. I just refuse to accept your attempt to exclude software development from the template or try to treat it as equal to software engineering. You know that it is broader in scope. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. First read, discuss and if that doesn't work refert. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to experiment, use the WP:Sandbox. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you make no sense. I am just improving the articles.

I would ask you to comment on the talk pages instead of starting an editwar. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I already commented on the talk page. You could have used the WP:Sandbox to make your point. You're the one who started the edit war. And you only waited 3 hours to merge away a page that had been active for 7 years without buy-in from other users. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Making one remark on a talk page doesn't give you the right to start an edit war. I have explained myself on the talk pages of the two articles and so far you haven't even considered what I said. If you want to contribute to Misplaced Pages, start acting like that instead of your blind referts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You've made it difficult for me to assume good faith. I've made several remarks on the talk pages and with every edit in the comments. I already stated why your edits were unacceptable. You have yet to dispute anything I've said with anything that resembles logic. And you have yet to get any buy-in for your megabytes of changes and removal of content that was well accepted as it was on wikipedia for years. It's you who's unwilling to discuss. I know exactly what you are doing. Your edits lack WP:NPOV and over-simplify a broad multidisciplinary subject to technology, making it difficult for the less technically skilled to feel qualified to even have an opinion on the subject. I know your type. I've worked with them. You are not fooling me. It simply your way of trying to monopolize the terminology and make the field of software development an exclusive club where software engineers have the final say if not the only say. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)