User talk:Robertatum

Nonsense of Decision engineering
provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Decision engineering
I've reconsidered and I will let the article go. It is somewhat confusing (at least to me), so I have placed a tag. Sr13 07:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If the article is not clear enough, please go into the matter and tell me why. I think it is rather unfair to place a tag without explaining exactly the problem (not in general).

Robertatum

Decision engineering
I have added a "" template to the article Decision engineering, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. As explained in the deletion notice, decision engineering appears to have been machine translated. (See also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. &mdash; Feezo (Talk) 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Decision engineering
Instead of deleting an article, try to improve it, especially if english is not perfect... It will be a good exercise and will help you to understand its meaning. Furthermore, don't delete this article again.

Robertatum 15 June 2007


 * I'm afraid this goes a little beyond imperfection; the translation is sufficiently poor that the article was deleted by two separate administrators for appearing to be patent nonsense. Although another user cleaned it up a little, it continues to lack any sort of meaningful context. Since you undid my redirect, could you perhaps explain how this article isn't redundant with systems engineering? &mdash; Feezo (Talk) 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Addition to the above; please feel free to share your thoughts at Articles for deletion/Decision engineering &mdash; Feezo (Talk) 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the second external link which is written in excellent english: I'm sure you'll make sure it is not redundant with systems engineering. This concept Decision engineering is learned in the most famous schools in France, as HEC for instance. See also french article in wikipedia, sources show that publications can be found on this subject (Decision engineering) in CNRS as well wich is the main research frenc institute. If it ia a problem of english langage, try to improve it. It will be a nice contribution to Wikipedia in english. Robertatum

Your complaint
Regarding your post on my talk page, please be advised that decision engineering will be deleted only in the case of judgement by the community. There is nothing unilateral or disrespectful about this: you have as much right as anybody to explain why this article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for deletion. &mdash; Feezo (Talk) 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of decision engineering
A tag has been placed on decision engineering, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a. If you can indicate how decision engineering is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:decision engineering saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Feezo (Talk) 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do no recreate deleted article. Deletion Review is the third door on the right. I have redeleted. Please do not recreate it again. Spartaz Humbug! 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Decision engineering, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a. If you can indicate how Decision engineering is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Decision engineering saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. P4k 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning
Your constant recreation of this article is dispruptive. If you recreate this article again I will block you. The article was deleted after a valid debate at AFD and was found not to meet the expected standards for inclusion. If you want to dispute the deletion you are welcome to take the matter to Deletion Review but it is not constructive to simply defy the AFD result. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I'm arguably involved now. On reflection I salted the page to prevent recreation. I probably should have done that earlier. Honestly your best way forward is to take this to deletion review. Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from User:Spartaz. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Android Mouse 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on user talk:Spartaz
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Feezo (Talk) 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of your Article
There was a valid deletion discussion that decided to delete your article. That is how it works round here. There is absolutely no reason why you can't ask for a deletion review and if you have good reasons backed up by policy for the article to be restored then its possible to get it back. Going around arguing with other users is simply wasting both your time and theirs. Please find something more constructive to do with your energy. There are lots of articles out there that might benefit from your attention Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are very polite but you delete an article without improving it. That is censure and it is not noble. Censuring and deleting are the same. You mention you made valid discussion, but I read no valid argue ou critic. That means you reject this article because you cannot understand it, and it is not a question of english langage but cleverness. You decided alone with your friends, helped by your robots. It is a pity. It is not by this way you can improve Wikipedia. And if you are unhappy because I am telling you the truth, try to work better in the next future. Robertatum. June 25 Robertatum


 * Hello again. I think you simply have to accept that there are standards and your article was found not to meet them. I'm sorry that you have seen the direct side of the project - I don't like being heavy handed with new users - especially as the wiki way can be very confusing fior newcomers and we were all new once. Nevertheless, one of the things you will have to learn is that if you want the content, you need to maintain it and make sure that it meets the requirements to be retained. This is a volunteer project and we all work on what interests us. If you leave it to others to sort out your articles, they are pretty likely just to get deleted. I'm sorry to be so blunt but that's simply the way it is. Spartaz Humbug! 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of Decisional analysis of complex systems
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or from printed material.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Decisional analysis of complex systems with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Decisional analysis of complex systems with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you.  Boricu æ  ddie  00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of Decisional analysis of complex systems
I have permission from the author (J. Bucki) to release the content of the article you mentioned freely and I am the administrator of the site But english wikipedia deleted the article and I cannot leave a message on the article's talk page. So that I should send an email from an adress associated with the original publication, would you be so kind to mention the email adress I have to send my message to. Robertatum 12.21, 6 september 2007

RE:Copyright status of Decisional analysis of complex systems
Please read Requesting copyright permission. Also, please leave new messages at my talk page. -- Boricu æ  ddie  10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the articles deletion log, administrator Carlossuarez46 deleted the article per WP:CSD (copyright infringement). It was not because the subject is not appropriate, or because of your grammar. We don't do that. Please re-write the article in your own words and it will not be deleted. Hope this helps,  Boricu æ  ddie  21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Decisional analysis of complex systems
Following Wikipedia policy regarding Copyright infringement, there is a notice on the web page releasing the work under the GFDL : see the notice at the bottom of the page at: | http://iegd.institut.online.fr

00:20, 7 september 2007 Robertatum Robertatum 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will restore the article - as copyright is not an issue any more. The article may still be considered and deleted per our other deletion mechanisms such as WP:AFD debates. I'll see on that until after it's restored. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 23:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is good reasons to delete an article, I can understand any decision. Sincerely Yours.

06:47, 7 september 2007 Robertatum Robertatum 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)