User talk:Mdd/Archive 5

Proposed deletion of John A. Dillon


The article John A. Dillon has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:PROF.

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  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  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. Abductive (reasoning) 07:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of SBC Architecture for deletion
The article SBC Architecture is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/SBC Architecture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Cheers, —Ruud 14:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Headline text
Please explain why you removed what I added to Systems theory.Margaret9mary (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Margaret, I already did, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-regulating systems existed in nature long before Homo sapiens and human-made systems, and natural systems are easier for most people to observe and understand. Taking these points into account might contribute to a better explanation of systems theory.Margaret9mary (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you are first an engineer and also an artist. And engineering involves a very specialized form of thinking.

Software development icon
While looking for an icon for a proposed software development stub template, I came across you uploaded. It distinguishes software development from software engineering and computer programming quite well, even scaled down. Would you be willing to make a slightly darker version for the template? If not, I'm happy to use it as is. --Pnm (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I see what you mean, and I could give it a try. -- Mdd (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have improved the contrast of images by some redrawing. -- Mdd (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Pnm (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Complex systems
While waiting for feedback from you concerning the article Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences(website posted on the discussion page of Systems theory) it occurred to me that there were no Systems Theories before the advent of humans but Complex Systems existed in nature. Therefore complex systems in nature are the original systems.

At issue is that there is a "family" of systems theories that involvee self-correcting, self-regulating mechanisms through feedback and homeostasis that should be identified with a unifying name. But perhaps there is a difference between systems in nature--including human communities, etc. and those systems created by humans. Margaret9mary (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have seen your request, and also here, I am sorry I am not into debating these kind of issues at te moment. Personaly I think a Linked-In group like Systems Thinking or Systems Thinking World would be a better place to discuss these kind of concerns. -- Mdd (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have stepped on your toes. My concern is that humans tend to forget that the overarching metasystem they must fit into is the global system.Margaret9mary (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have stepped on your toes. My concern is that humans tend to forget that the overarching metasystem they must fit into is the global system.Margaret9mary (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Translations of the Project management article

 * sw:Usimamizi_wa_Miradi
 * uk: Управління_проектами

-- Mdd (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation for your reverts?
You reverted system theory [|//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systems_theory&oldid=423331368] and systems science [] and [] without any explanation, could you give some rationale at least? JuanR (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to mention Canonical Science in those articles, first you should write an article about it. For now I considered it, as I said, NE: Not Encyclopedic. Even if you write that article, it is not guaranteed, that you can mention it in those articles. Those specific overview-articles can only list the most important developments in the field. You can put the Canonical Science in the systems theory category, but not all that is listed in that category (and his subcategories) gets mentioned in the systems theory article. -- Mdd (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (i) I have searched WP:NE and "Not Encyclopedic" in Wikipedia policies and could not find any rule that obligates to write first an article about a topic before citing it. Indeed, there many articles in Wikipedia that cite topics for the which no Wikipedia article exist still and I can see red links is several other articles. Could you give me a link to relevant policies?


 * (ii) The canonical theory is one of the most important developments, as stated in several places (including scientific encyclopedias). The canonical theory has done scientific predictions unlike Gell-Mann CAS and other semi-philosophical approaches. What procedure do you follow to infer what is and what is not "important" for inclusion? Thanks JuanR (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that canonical theory is NE. What I meant is that canonical theory in the context of systems theory is NE, or at least this seems so. If you want to add it to the article, you have to give reliable sources that state that canonical theory is important in the context of systems theory.


 * Now it seems to me here you made a good start with an article about Canonical theory. Just take that text and develop it into an article. Don't try to start an article in an important article like systems theory. This is a dead-end, while you made such a promising start. -- Mdd (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only Keizer showed that his canonical theory explained and predicted properties of physical, chemical, and biological systems (going beyond chaos theory and other approaches) but that he founded the Institute of Theoretical Dynamics precisely for promoting and supporting interdisciplinary research ranging from applied mathematics to chemistry to physics, to biology, and to medicine [].


 * All this is more important than the semi-metaphysical stuff as CAS (and other irrelevances worked at SFI and similar organizations). I will try to write an article on canonical science and some biography about Keizer and then will cite this in systems theory. JuanR (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Information Visualization link deleted
Excuse me, why HYPOIKON is not a notable blog? Is one of the few italian sites on Infoviz and it is administrated by two PhD in Communication. There is a Scientific Pubs section and some interesting projects in infoviz. Please reconsider your decision to remove the link. Thanks! Slowhand1980 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed that blog had 13 entries and is written by two (Italan (?)) PhD students. This is not considered notable to Wikipedia standards, see also WP:EL and WP:N. -- Mdd (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a site/blog written by two Italian PhD students, is it a forbidden link? Slowhand1980 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

MDD: Willing to help with some Wikipedia-related research?
I'm a first-year PhD student working on a system to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on scientific topics by providing easier access to relevant scientific publications. I was hoping to speak with some editors who work on scientific articles in order to solicit requirements for my system in order to better satisfy the needs of the Wikipedia community. I noticed that you have been a caretaker for a number of pages on topics including information visualization and systems theory, and I would really appreciate your input. If you are interested, please let me know on my talk page (talk). Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

Hi MDD - thank you so much for your offer to help! I decided the easiest way to do this would be to post questions to my talk page - would love your input! Sanjaykairam (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I will give it some thought and give a respond in a few days. -- Mdd (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your advise
Hi Mdd

Thanks for your offer, happily take it up.

I have created a Wiki entry called "Prime project method". It is a new project method. I have been involved in the development. I read the criteria of Wiki and thought the topic to be relevant. This especially because I think Wiki does also have entries about newer things.

Hence question 1: Does Wiki only cover established topics or also new developments? The entry already seems to be flagged by SmackBot.

Whilst writing I wanted to be brief. Did not want a deadly long, too detailed entry. Problem is, that the method is on a license base and therefore there are copyright issues. The method has been mentioned in one book so far but basically only with the method name. I have access to the copyright documents and could write more about it and mention the manuals as source as well.

Hence question 2: Should I mention the methods manuals?

When writing I made a small mistake. The name of the method is PRIME and not Prime.

Question 3: How to change an entry name? (from Prime project method to PRIME project method)

Last but not least, in my eagerness I have entered some reference in two other topics: Project Management, Project planning, and A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. These changes have been reverted by PM master (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pm_master#PRIME_project_method)Comment left to PM master.

Would really appreciate your feedback and advise.

Maybe it was a mistake to write about this in Wiki. I liked the 5th rule a lot, but no more sure if people live up to it.

Looking forward to your answer.

Zugerbueb (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mdd


 * Thanks for your support. However the case is closed. Everything what I have written has been deleted. I wanted to improve the article and quote from another book that covered the method. But it seems other people have been faster with deleting everything. Not to many chances to share information if work is getting deleted so fast. Thanks again for your support.Zugerbueb (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Warwick
Mdd: A while back you did a good overhaul of the "Kevin Warwick" page. At present there is a vandal at large regarding the page. Essentially the person is trying to reinstate something you edited out. Despite reversion of the text and a polite request for this to be taken to Discussion (which they apparently will not do), they persist in perpetually reinserting a specific statement. The suspicion is that the statement is personal and specific to them. What are the possibilities of locking the page and/or cutting off this user - they appear simply to enter via one or two different IP addresses - no Wikipedia user name? Can you help please? Bradka (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to intervene with this. However it was to no avail. The statement has been once more reinserted without regard for an extensive discusssion. Indeed there even appear to be further frivolities going on as a result. Once more different IP addresses have been used to insert text without the use of user names. Where do we go from here? Bradka (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If this continues I guess we should try Requests for page protection a temporary Semi-protect. -- Mdd (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance on this. Having looked at the reference given for the www.theregister.co.uk article mentioned by User:Flammi35, it appears that this recent flurry of activity may well have been sparked by that particular article. They refer specifically in the article to edit wars in fact. Thereby realising their own news story. What has occurred is probably a direct consequence. I agree with your analysis above - if it continues then a temporary page protection would be in order. --Bradka (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 2/0 locked the Kevin Warwick page giving an unlock date of 20th July 2011. However on 28th June 2011 Bihco unlocked the site stating protection has expired. Was there a change of decision do you know? - Bradka (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I personally think that doesn't really mater. User:Pettefar already restored the critique, while 2/0 requested not to restore the disputed material (see here), while there is a consensus on the talk page not to restore that material. Now we both cannot continue to remove that material because of the 3RR rule.


 * I guess there are a few things we can do: Go up higher in the Wikipedia bureaucracy to get this article protected, and/or accuse the registered users that go against the settlement. But first regarding to User:Pettefar, he should be informed about that settlement, and be asked to join the discussion. If he doesn't respond at all, then maybe you can remove that text one more time. An other thing we can do is think about an alternative solution... and for example ask our self, why this is happening. -- Mdd (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have thought about it. It had been all quiet on the Kevin Warwick page for some time but then an article appeared (17th June) on The Register specifically inciting the edit of the paragraph in question to be made. Looking at the comments following the article there are some which go along with the suggestion of the edit being forcibly made. Essentially The Register is attempting to direct what it says in Wikipedia. We have to accept (as you pointed out) that The Register regularly has a go at Captain Cyborg. [Interestingly following the article there are also many comments supportive of Warwick – even on The Register]. Mostly the paragraph was then (mindlessly?) edited in – did the users think about what the paragraph is about, what it (or the cited reference) says? I question this. Clearly The Register incitement is unlikely to go away – maybe it will be quiet for 9 months but then there will be another article and it will happen again. The Register supporters, it appears, do not wish to conform to Wikipedia norms by taking part in a consensus discussion on the Talk page - which all seems to go in one direction. It would therefore be good if we could grasp the nettle and try to sort the problem out now. Most recently, even with the page locked, User:Pettefar and User:Bihco have both edited the page following in The Register’s wake. But unlike the previous edits, they are both experienced Wikipedia editors. Is it possible that we could come up with a compromise solution – putting it all in perspective within the Kevin Warwick page – to reflect the criticism but in an appropriate way. If User: Pettefar and User:Bihco are prepared to be Wikipedia editors first, Register readers second then maybe we can get somewhere. Could the 4 of us (as a Working Party) thrash out a solution between us? If this is possible then it might need more time than 20 July – so locking the page for another month or so might be beneficial. But it really would be good to sort this out now. You never know we might find a solution pretty quickly. However if there is no wish on The Register supporters part to compromise then either the page will spend it’s life with this edit going in and out, or the page will need to be locked as you suggested. Your thoughts? -- Bradka (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the latest adjustments by User:Smoperator put things better in perspective and looks like an interesting alternative solution. -- Mdd (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree - let's see what happens. -- Bradka (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it appears the consensus idea didn't work - the vandals appear to be up to their old tricks. They have completely ignored all discussions on the Talk page. The same Register inspired paragraph has been reinserted twice already. So what now? -- Bradka (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to do something about it you should ask an administrator for help, for example User:2over0 who warned you not to remove that text any more. You should always respect the 3RR rule, but could ask him for an alternative solution. -- Mdd (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nassi–Shneiderman diagram Software links removed?
Hi, can you tell me why you removed the Software section from this page? That page is used as a reference for people taking programming courses at the VDAB here in Belgium and having the links to the application sites is very useful &mdash; vulcan_  14:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Two of those links where directly to company webpages (which is considered linkspam), and the third didn't seem that notable, see also WP:EL -- Mdd (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!
Thanks Victuallers. -- Mdd (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pm master
I was recently accused of "vandalism" by user:Pm master for removing a (rather poor) WBS coding example at Work breakdown structure.

The vehemence user:Pm master showed in defending the link to pmhut.com made me have a look at the edit history, and it turned up some disturbing evidence.

There are over 100 links to pmhut.com from en.wikipedia. This linkspam is strongly defended by user:Pm master, even though much of it was added by other users.

When I had a peek at the "other" users, I noted a pattern: (1) start an account, (2) add some links to pmhut.com, (3) never show activity in WP again, (4) Pm master accuses people of vandalism if they try to pull the links.

I don't know if they are sockpuppet accounts, or whether PMHut requires their contributors to spam WP program management articles to get on the pmhut.com website. But the frequency of occurence is such that I don't think it can be coincidental.

You might take a look at the contribution histories of these users: User:Securityfreak, User:Neverascapegoat, User:Causeeffect, User:Myproject, User:ChristyGris, User:Chocolatecoffee, User:Medusaguy1, User:Jay R. Goldb (There are a lot more, I just looked at the first page of a pmhut.com linksearch )

Pm master may just be someone with a COI, but it looks more like a puppet master keeping the pmhut.com site highly linked. 69.1.23.134 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have great faith in user:Pm master and he has been doing a great job here in Wikipedia keeping important articles clean of linkspam... for years now.


 * Now I have taken a look at the Work breakdown structure article, and it seems to me the example user:Pm master has restored could be considered a quote. I don't see the need to change that example.


 * I guess you should forgive the use of the word "vandalism". Our vocabulair is limited when it come to these automatically generated messages. -- Mdd (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/ERROL
Hi Mdd, I noticed you once added a link to ERROL here. Would you be interested in joining the discussion at Articles for deletion/ERROL? Groet, —Ruud 17:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD nomination
FYI: W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me)  19:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead links in article 'View model'
Hi. The article 'View model' has some dead links that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix them?

Dead: http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~krogstie/publications/2003/quality-book/b2-languages.pdf
 * You added this in December 2008.

Dead: http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/jitc_dri/pdfs/dodaf_v1v1.pdf
 * The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.
 * You added this in December 2008.

These links are marked with Dead link in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
 * The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)