User talk:SteveMcCluskey/Archive 2

no problem
I misread things, jumped to conclusions, and flipped out. my apologies to you. ThuranX (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Condemnations of Paris (1210-1277)
I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping out in a discussion over at Talk:Condemnations (University of Paris). An anonymous editor disagrees with the conclusions of the sources cited in the article, and I feel that this discussion will end up going nowhere (or rather, dragging on indefinitely) unless we get a third opinion. I think you would be the most qualified and able to sort this out, based on the amount of work you get done on Wikipedia's history of science articles.

Sorry if you are still on Wikibreak though; I see there is a tag on your userpage, but you seemed to be active recently at the articles on flat earth and in the discussion at history of science. --Grimhelm (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple instructions for "Committed ID"
Hi Steve, I saw your comments at Template_talk:User_committed_identity. I added a new section with a link to my Guide for Dummies. Your feedback is welcome. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Celstial spheres and Ptolemy's inconsistency?
In the Celestial spheres article Talk, do you intend to respond on the interesting issue of whether Ptolemy was inconsistent in his planetary model, as you claim, or just proposed two undecidable alternatives, as raised by Logicus on 30 June ? --Logicus (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the McCluskey or the orthodox history of inertia ?
On Friday 13 June without Logicus's agreement you deleted his attempted contribution to the history of inertia in the celestial spheres added to the 'Celestial spheres' article on 13 June, which you claimed was irrelevant in an article on the celestial spheres, and with the 14 June concurrence of your appointed watchdog Deor in that judgment.

And on 19 June in the Celestial spheres:Talk you also condemned Logicus's history of inertia as also an "idiosyncratic POV history of inertia", albeit you did not subsantiate this claim. You said “It seems that Logicus is proposing to use the discussion of the celestial spheres as a coatrack on which he wishes to hang a discussion of his idiosyncratic pov on the history of inertia.”

But surely you are clearly wrong about the irrelevance of inertia to the physics of the celestial spheres, as demonstrated for example by your mentor Edward Grant's discussion of the inertial resistance attributed to the spheres by Oresme in that section on the celestial spheres in Grant's 'Cosmology' article in Lindberg's 1978 ? (See Logicus's quotation of it in User talk:Deor on 10 July.)

As for your charge that Logicus's history of inertia is an "idiosyncratic POV" history, in the first instance I would be grateful if you would kindly direct me to what you regard as a non-idiosyncratic non-POV history of inertia, presumably what you would regard as a consensual orthodox history of inertia, or else present one yourself here. In short, what is the McCluskey view of the 'correct' history of inertia.

Secondly, I would be grateful if you would then demonstrate those respects wherein Logicus's history is an idiosyncratic POV compared with your favoured account.

So far as Logicus is concerned, the history of inertia he provided is simply a rational summary of the literature on the history of inertia, a non-gravitational inherent resistance to motion in bodies.

Otherwise Logicus would be grateful if you would simply retract your hitherto unsubstantiated allegation that the history of inertia he summarised is a personal idiosyncratic POV. --Logicus (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for standard infobox for History of [country] templates
Hi there! You're a member of WikiProject History, so I'm just informing you about a proposal I've made about standardizing History of [country] templates (like Template:History of France). The discussion is located at the talk page for WikiProject History—your comments and criticism are welcome. Thank you. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Mathematics (an old topic revisited)
Hello, Steve. I'm writing here because I can't find an email address for you. Firstly, thanks for the update on the Cambridge History of Science volume. (You may be interested to hear that that's easily the most visited page on my blog.) Secondly, regarding your impressively measured discussion with Rick Norwood about what counts as mathematics: if the issue arises again, you may find it helpful to refer to the new Oxford Handbook of the History of Mathematics, which is avowedly broader in its approach. And I'm not just saying that because I have a chapter in it! All the best, Brunellus (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Galileo Signature
I have traced the signature myself, and have added the source image in the description. Connormah (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Historia Ecclesiastica translations
Hello, I find that I sent a response only to Ealdgyth: like this "It is good that I know how the situation arose: some of the important aticles are just so complex that timing changes and finding the time to do them mean only part of the work is done. As such high quality articles are involved I am reluctant to take it on soon but will look again next week.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)" By today I feel the same, reluctant to take it on, it is easy to make a good move but not carry it out properly. I only have a patchy familiarity with Old English texts and history. Whoever continues work on Bede will have to think seriously about the matter anyway.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating
Just a gentle discussion. 1) The 60,000 years was not mentioned in the scintillating carbon research quoted as reference. So is the reference still valid as a reference? 2) The carbon 14 half life to become nitrogen atom is 5730 (with tolerance plus and minus 40) years. It is also mentioned in Carbon 14 article. May I have more info from you regarding the 60,000 dating limit? Ancos (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi:
 * The text cited says at p. 161: "the characteristics of the underground laboratory of Gran Sasso make it possible to ... extend for these idealized samples the dating limit from 58,000 BP to 62,000 BP."  That sounds like the article's "about 60,000 years," so I restored it.
 * Your identification of a single half-life as the maximum dating range is Original Research, so I deleted it.
 * --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I thought the carbon dating test lab in the university is always right. So it can be wrong. Let me tell the professor. I think I will edit the 60,000 to "58,000 - 62,000" to be exactly the same with the reference. Ancos (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tycho Brahe apparently under siege
User:Logicus has once again laid siege to the article Tycho Brahe, with all grandiloquent irrelevance. I would appreciate some neutral feedback on the matter. The version of the "Tycho's observational astronomy" section as edited by Logicus was totally unacceptable. Rather than revert it to an earlier revision, I edited it to what seemed to be a more faithful presentation of the sources. But I would appreciate your assessment as well. Thanks, 71.182.244.158 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * May I just mention that I was glad to see your comments on this subject. I would have thought the broad thrust was permissibly factual and (without claiming to have legally analysed every letter of them) any element of primary-source-interpretation rather small.  Terry0051 (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to solicit comment again, but would you mind taking a look at the Tycho Brahe section, please? I have tried to make it a more balanced presentation of the sources, rather than Logicus' antihagiography. But I could use an outside opinion, since arguing with Logicus tends to be counterproductive at some point. 74.98.45.40 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Typo?
Here, you mentioned "tives". I'm not sure what I can help you with, or you mean by that?174.3.111.148 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you don't think that I'm ignoring the RfC
I tried to word the RfC at Talk:Celestial spheres‎ in a neutral fashion, as suggested at WP:RFC; and I've refrained from commenting therein, though that doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion. I think that when it seems appropriate, I'll request that an uninvolved admin write a closing statement for the RfC, since it seems unlikely that Logicus will accept anything posted over my name. (He probably won't accept any closure that doesn't advocate the reinstatement of his personal interpretation of the primary sources, but that's a matter for another user RfC or some other process.) Deor (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand and agree completely --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys really are paradigms of bad faith editors ! It is not at all likely I will not accpt anything posted in Deor's name if it can be established he is not a McCluskey sockpuppet/meatpuppet. Nor will I necessarity insist on replacement.--Logicus (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you have difficulty accepting the reality that a substantial number of editors can independently come to the conclusion that you are engaging in Original Research, Point of View pushing, and Disruptive Editing. Deor is not my sockpuppet or meatpuppet; the fact that he initiated this RfC just as I was in the midst of a Wikibreak to attend to Real World issues says something about our lack of coordination. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no difficulty in accepting insubstantially very few editors like yourself can independently come to such invalid conclusions, and for the 2 main reasons I have already clearly stated in the extract of my July 2008 comment on your 2007 RfC posted above.


 * And on meatpuppetry, your 'User contributions' record clearly shows you were not on a Wikibreak in the period you claimed you were. And the fact that Deor first raised an OR objection in 2007 when he was minding this article at your behest whilst you also claimed to be on a Wikibreak, and the evident way he gets advice and direction from you in this business, and the fact that he has failed to state any reasons of his own why the material is OR, surely strongly suggest he is just your meatpuppet in this matter.


 * But if Deor wants to say where and why the material is OR in his opinion, I would anyway be prepared to discuss his objection with him. But his RfC question was non-neutral and ill formed as I have pointed out, and nobody has yet agreed with him that it is "OR based on primary and selected secondary sources". And anyway being based on primary and selected secondary sources is not in itself an NOR violation. He needs to find a different objection if he wants to establish OR. --Logicus (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So where's the OR in the RfC material ?
In your recent RfC comments which alleged the material in question is OR, unfortunately you never identified which of its claims are OR in your view. I would be most grateful if you would now do this so that I may consider how any such breaches of NOR policy may be remedied by some revision(s) should any of your criticisms be objectively valid.

If you can oblige me, I would be most grateful if you would start with the material in the smaller section entitled 'Impetus in the celestial spheres', at least since I imagine it would be less problematical for you on your particular understanding of medieval dynamics, as well as being smaller. So in the first instance, do you claim that particular material is OR anywhere?

And in case you ever thought Wilson's objections were valid, I would also be grateful to know whether you think they have now been overcome by my proposed revisions of the only four sentences he seemed to claim are OR because he claims they are OS.

Thanks in anticipation

--Logicus (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would much appreciate a helpful positive response to this request of 10 days ago. Please try and start to identify claims I have made in articles that you claim are OR. --Logicus (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If there was a Fire Hose Award...
...I would nominate you for it. Seeing that you had chastised Finell and Ncmvocalist for their remarks on a recent AN made my day. Thanks for cooling things off. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (The sad user who followed some of the drama found when archiving Talk:Celestial Spheres)

Global sysops/Vote
Hello - You, or someone with your username, has voted in the Global Sysops Vote but you don't have a Unified Login (SUL account). Please could you: This is necessary to confirm your identity or your vote may not be counted. Thank you --(RT) (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * merge your accounts
 * or add a link from your Meta user page to your local user page.

History of science
I got mixed up with all the reverts, and hadn't seen your previous edit. Didn't mean to call it POV-pushing, and I agree with it. Sorry about that. Athenean (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Universities and madrasas
Hi Steve. You were also interested in these two institutions, their differences and similarities, weren't you? You urgently need to check out George Makdisi: "Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages", Studia Islamica, No. 32 (1970), pp. 255-264, Makdisi is very clear about their profound differences. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Notification: I moved this discussion to madrasa. I feel this is the best place: if the madrasa is meant to be a university, it should be clarified there, just as if someone thinks Marilyn Monroe to be a man, this should be discussed at Marilyn Monroe, not man. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Claims about al-Iji and astronomy
I thought I'd found all the claims about al-Iji and astronomy, and edited them for sense, but I see you've found yet more of them (including a duplicated example on the Islamic cosmology page). I'll have another search through tomorrow to find the remaining instances.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)



Your unhelpful conduct in raising another anti-Logicus RfC
Rather than help resolve dispute and conflict by identifying what claims I have made that you allege are OR, as requested above to help me try to improve material to make good any possible breaches of NOR policy, instead you have just raised another RfC against me.

But in the first instance as I see it you are in breach of the following policy rule for RfCs on user conduct :

“Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.”

Neither yourself nor your fellow certifier Finell have contacted me on my talk page to make the slightest effort to find a resolution or compromise, or to even state the dispute. In response to my requests for you to do so, you both even refuse to identify any single example of any claim I have made in an article that is OR to help me try and understand your point of view, which I find unintelligible as it is. Thus you create the impression I am just being punished by a little gang of Wiki bully-boys for my repeated exposure and elimination of their OR with failed verifications in Wikipedia articles, including yours.

Secondly, the lead complaint of this RfC is that:

“Since at least 2006, Logicus ... has been engaged in an ongoing program of pushing his own point of view, based largely on original research, in a wide range of articles, chiefly concerned with the sciences and the history and philosophy of science.”

But this is patently false, and yet again as with your first RfC, in an ocean of verbiage we find not a single example of my alleged OR has been provided. So it remains an empty allegation I cannot possibly discuss or respond to rationally. I suggest you withdraw this RfC and begin a rational discussion with me in the first instance to let me know about where and how you think I have committed OR, identifying the specific claims made that you allege are OR, which most amazingly after 3 years you have yet to do. --Logicus 01:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply
First time I hear of such a procedure; it sounds indeed laborious exactly for the reasons you've given and its chances of success are unclear. However, if this constant re-inserting of material removed by consensus continues, it may still turn out to be the much less time-consuming avenue. I am not a native speaker, so I am not best prepared to lead such a case, but I would most certainly contribute. I am starting to collect diffs, just in case it ever comes down to that, and I'd advise you to do the same. I don't think this will stop until it is being stopped by someone. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Elliptical orbits
I've just run across some material on elliptical orbits in your sandbox, while in the process of gathering information on this myself (see User:Syncategoremata/Elliptical orbits). I'll steal what you have there for the page I'm putting together and if you have any other bits like that, please do let me know. But: if you are currently midway through doing something about this material, please let me know and I'm sure I can find something else to patch up.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion
Hello, you are invited to take part in the following discussion on this topic. The discussion is about general ways to improve Wikipedia in terms of verfifiability of contents. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See here and here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Poor sourcing
To avoid duplication of effort, you should probably keep an eye on this page. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to presentism
The "largely attempted to avoid making claims about medieval scholars that go beyond what the sources suggest" quote nearly had me swallow my tongue.

Anyhow I wondered if you could look at this and see if you think it's clear and reasonable etc.

Also I added one link to your sandbox section, pointing to the discussions on the Indian mathematics talk page. I hope that is okay.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion, but I agree with you and David Wilson, for what that's worth. --ragesoss (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Jagged 85
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at    :Requests for comment/Jagged 85. -- Syncategoremata (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks
And many thanks too for my very first barnstar. I'm going to go and cherish it now.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Monastic schools
Hi Steve. Are you interested in creating a concise three-liner about medieval monastic schools which would complement cathedral school? I could give you some support (with sources of mine), but I am not really well versed in their relationship with the cathedral schools. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get to it in the next week or two. Cathedral schools also needs a lot of work, in part because it deals with two separate issues: medieval cathedral schools and their modern successors.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, drop me a note then. I noticed this language version btw. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your addition to Cathedral school. Now that the RFC/U draws to an end, may I draw your attention again to the monastic schools? :-) Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have expanded your stub a bit and also added in the lead the line that Monastic schools evolved in many places into medieval universities which eventually largely superseded both institutions as centers of higher learning but unfortunately without being able to check it again, since I don't have access anymore to that source. Can you still testify to the accuracy of the claim, namely that medieval universities often evolved from these institutions? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Common-term links
I saw your comment at the talk page of Colonies Chris. It is not whether an item is relevant to the topic at hand, but whether the target would help the reader to understand that topic. Balanced against this is the dilutionary factor: there are plenty of high-value links already in the 12th-century Latin translations article, whereas Spain, Italy, Europe, etc, are highly unlikely to be clicked on. Moreoever, such articles primarily deal with those countries and the continent in modern times, whereas that is not the context in the anchor article: they are, if anything, misleading. Tony  (talk)  08:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment needing your input
Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, --Figs Might Ply (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

greco
I made some searchs "Greco-Islamic science". Google Search. Retrieved 16 June 2010. "Greco-Arabic science". Retrieved 16 June 2010. These names are common and lead to some really good sources I am surprised you haven't encountered any of them. ("Greco-Islamic medicine and Greco-Arabic are also common names for "Galenic medicine). The neutrality issue, I think is that a number of sources have tried to show that "Arabs" did not blindly follow the Greeks this comes to wiki as if there were no Greeks to follow. I think I was being neutral. I do like your second edit.J8079s (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Jagged 85 sock puppet case
I have now finished the draft of such a case which I will hold off lodging for a few more hours. Please feel free to provide feedback on my talk page. David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's now up. You should probably edit the signature to your comment so that it post-dates the initiation of the case.  Given the changes I have made to the statement of the case you might also want to edit your comment as well.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A question about Astronomy
Hi Steve. Maybe you don´t remember me, but I was involved in the Jagged85 affair some time ago. I noticed you have great interest in Astronomy, so maybe you can answere me the following question: what´s the difference between an eccentric orbit and an elliptical orbit? Some time ago I though they were the same, but now I´ve been reading about greek astronomers, and the books say Hipparchus and Ptolemy used eccentric orbits, but I thought Kepler was the one who discovered the ellipticity of planetary orbits. So, what´s the difference between the two terms? I would be extremely grateful if you could help me out with this. Thanks for your time--Knight1993 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for clarifying that. I didn´t know a circle could be eccentric without becoming an ellipse. Now I understand Kepler´s contribution much better. I owe you one Steve.--Knight1993 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Madrasah
Hi Steve. I understand your opinion, and I think you´re right. It´s certainly not the best source. I´ll try to find better ones to see to what extent natural sciences were taught in the madrasas. Thanks for your advice--Knight1993 (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman total iron output
You are invited to take part in a discussion on a scholarly estimate of total Roman iron production here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Francesca Bray
Yes, I was surprised to see teosinte in SCC VI.2, myself. I believe that Needham was conversant with George Beadle's hypothesis about teosinte from the 1930s, and he influenced Bray. There are offhand comments about agriculture for Iran and England in SCC as well.

I have been studying SCC to get some closure on Needham's Grand Question and have come to believe that the failure to develop Capitalism is the cause of the slowness of the development of Science in China, compared to the West. Now that things have changed. ...

The wiki is slow, this is my second try to respond to you. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages

 * You are invited to participate in the vote at Talk:Science in the Middle Ages as an attempt to establish a consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

defamatory or potentially libellous?
The comments werent meant to be offensive, I am muslim myself (neither Arab nor Persian). The remarks were actually part of a much larger point I was trying to make, but wikipedia didnt allow me to make (because of the maximum words allowed to enter in the section). I was trying to make the point how the region in the 11th cent wasn't Arab in sense that it is now and how the far majority of scholars from that part of the world were ethnic Persians. Still, I cant believe that you changed my contributions based on my remarks.... Facts are facts, no matter who the messenger is (even if the messenger is some vile racist, which I absolutely am not). You are being very childish.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete my remarks, which I can understand, as I think they are a mistake. Don't delete information which is crucial to the person Alhazen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that his ethnicity isn't the most important thing about him, but in that case any reference about his etnicity should be removed (being that we are not sure about his). The page should describe him as a muslim or mesopotamian scientist, not an Arab one. Anyway, I think ethnicity does have a certain value. Ibn Khaldun, the famous Arab historian, wrote extensively about how Arabs are nearly absent in the muslim scientific field. About how the greatest scholars and scientists in the muslim world were non-Arabs. That statement wouldn't make any sense if Alhazen was Arab, being that the man is the single greatest scientist and innovator the Islamic world has produced. So, his ethnicity isn't very important for us to understand or appreciate Alhazen's work, but it does have value in that it helps us understand the early muslim community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll at SMA
Hi, ''Your recent edit to the headers of the poll has me somewhat confused. I thought we were talking about the sections of the SMA article, but your revised headers suggest we're now dealing with what to do with the other articles. I don't think you intended that but suggest you delete the links to the other articles to avoid any further confusion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)''


 * I guess I am equally confused. The sections are titled with explicit links to explict articles. My understanding was that we were discussing what to do with each of the articles and SMA in particular. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jagged85
Thanks for commenting on the issue.

First of all, let's not call this "criticism". Personal attacks, that make insults on a religious and political level, should have no place in wikipedia. If the early criticism had indeed been criticism (made by a now-blocked user), it would have been taken a lot more seriously.

Secondly, regarding "I hope we can count on your assistance in developing balanced and reliably sourced articles on Islamic science": most of my knowledge is on Islam, Islamic history etc. Hence most of my knowlege on history of chemistry, for example, would be on Muslim contributions to chemisty, and I'd be quite ignorant of western contributions.

Finally, I hope that we can correct damages without violating wiki policies, and with complete honesty. I came to know of this issue when I found Jagged85's contributions bieng deleted under false edit summaries, and my own contributions being deleted.

Thanks,Bless sins (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One more point: balanced behavior on my part will necessitate balanced behavior on the part of other editors (including yourself). If I see editors are on a deleting spree, deleting properly sourced and written material while doing a legitimate clean up of the Jagged85 mess, then most of my time will be spent on preservation of the material.Bless sins (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to fix collapse template
Hello. In an effort to cover all the bases regarding evidence in the form of diffs and explanations, I have a question for you. Here in the edit summary it says "Trying to fix collapse template". I am sure that Stevertigo created this template. If he created and placed this template on the talk page, why are you trying to fix it? It probably doesn't mean anything. I am surprised that you didn't simply remove it. Well, in the next diff it was removed along with the duplicated content. However, in the next diff it appears that Stevertigo added back, what was removed. And this is still in the thread at this moment, along with his focus on "minutiae and technicalities rather than the big picture". Why did the consensus (group) decide to leave the box in, along with the duplication, and Stevertigo's comments? Hope you don't mind. And you don't have to reply to any of this if you don't want to. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. The case is essentially over, and decided, and it will close within the next day or so. Thanks anyway for any reply that you might have provided. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)  You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom voting system RFC.

Kepler's disease
Nice job on conclusively demonstrating it's a hoax, I've now deleted it as vandalism. Thanks and keep up the good work. ~ mazca  talk 07:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Posted new intro to Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Since you responded to my earlier post, I'm hoping you may find the time to help on this. There was a box suggesting, correctly in my view, that the article needed a new lead, before the TOC. I wrote one, and after a few edits of my own, posted it to the article a few minutes ago.

How is it that he box at the top now gets removed?

I'm sorry that I'm a bit naive as a wikipedian regarding this. Jbutler18 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Jagged85
I remember i once came accross a tendentious editor everyone was complaining about. I think I found his new account. I decided to discuss it with you as you were a main guy in that discussion.


 * similarity

Both are interested in forced conversions

- and

- edit from jagged85 admitted anonymous IP


 * similarity

- not using page numbers. He only later decided to use proper citations.

-jagged85

- similar tag usage
 * similarity

-jagged85

- swap structuring a religion or race in layout or orders
 * similarity

- jagged85 does as well and here too

negative POV when it comes to Europeans, but positive POV of others,
 * similarity

- Both are interested in past empires and history

- A tendency to edit war with very strong opinions

- Both type fast and make dozens of edits in a matter of hours

- Same writing style

I started an edit war with him recently where he replaced good sources with others which give islam a higher proportion. My 6th sense just suspected jagged85. Do you think I have a case? Someone65 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Someone65 (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, never mind what i said there. Someone already did a check user and got a negative response. Sorry for wasting your time. Someone65 (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome
Good morning,

Interested in your thoughts on this proposal. Not necessarily expecting a positive response, still, your opinion is valued.

Regards

Aquib (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

atomism page of eng. wikipedia
I see that you have partecipated to discussion on “atomism” in the eng. article on wikipedia. I don't know if you have seen the recent talk page of this eng. wikipedia article. I tried unsuccessfully to amend this sentence:

“...The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BC,[2] appearing first in Jainism.[3] The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects.[4]...”

The same sentence is in “atom” eng. article of wikipedia.

“...The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE,[8] appearing first in Jainism.[9] The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects.[10] ...”

In Nyaya article: I see that “the Nyaya school of philosophical speculation is based on texts known as the Nyaya Sutras, which were written by Aksapada Gautama from around the 2nd century.” Written !?

If you go to Aksapada Gautama article: ''“ The Nyāya Sūtras are an ancient Indian text on of philosophy composed by Akṣapāda Gautama (also Gotama; c. 2nd century). The sutras contain five chapters, each with two sections. The core of the text dates to roughly the 2nd century[1], although there are significant later interpolations.[2]”''

In Vaisheshika article : ''Vaisheshika, or Vaiśeṣika, is one of the six Hindu schools of philosophy (orthodox Vedic systems) of India. Historically, it has been closely associated with the Hindu school of logic, Nyaya. Vaisheshika espouses a form of atomism and postulates that all objects in the physical universe are reducible to a finite number of atoms. Originally proposed by the sage Kaṇāda (or Kana-bhuk, literally, atom-eater) around the 2nd century BC.[1]''

In Kanada article ''It has been claimed that Kashyapa, later known as Kanada (Sanskrit: कणाद; also transliterated as Canada as well as other forms) was a Hindu sage and philosopher who founded the philosophical school of Vaisheshika. [1] He talked of Dvyanuka (biatomic molecule) and tryanuka (triatomic molecule). He probably lived around the 2nd century BCE,[2] while other sources claim he lived in the 6th Century BC. [3] [4] It is believed that he was born in Prabhas Kshetra (near Dwaraka) in Gujarat, India.''

In the Jain section of atomism article. T''he most elaborate and well-preserved Indian theory of atomism comes from the philosophy of the Jaina school, dating back to at least the 6th century BC. Some of the Jain texts that refer to matter and atoms are Pancastikayasara, Kalpasutra, Tattvarthasutra and Pannavana Suttam. '' You can see that Pancastikayasara, Kalpasutra, Tattvarthasutra they are all written in advanced CE era.

I think that history is based on write record. How is possible to use “superlative” adjectives “The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE,[8] appearing first in Jainism.[9] “ Why not in Hinduism ? And without written text !!!. Is not better to write “probably atomism is born ancient India, etc etc “

What do you think ?

Andriolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.58.29 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages: Vote and scope
Hi. Check out Talk:Science in the Middle Ages Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anomaly link
Hello Steve, I think you removed the redirect to 'anomaly' in the Kuhn intro. Is this because you believe the content on the anomaly wiki entry is misleading when compared to how Kuhn uses the term? Cheers --pjm (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Toledo School of Translators
The article is back, and you might want to look at it. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:49, 19 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 Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing
Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wheelus AFB question
I think this may (hopefully?) clarify the question on Wheelus...

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/January%202008/0108wheelus.aspx

Seems the name was Uqba Bin Nafi Air Base, now Mitiga Airport.

216.52.207.75 (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion
Hi, Steve. Could you take a look at the move discussion on Talk:Primum Mobile? A couple of editors and I seem to be talking past one another, and another voice might be helpful. You don't have to agree with me. Deor (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The List of oldest universities in continuous operation NPOV issue (again)
Hello,

I would like to inform you that the NPOV discussion about the List of oldest universities in continuous operation, to which you participated was reopened on the NPOVN.

The current discussion is ongoing on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

Regards, --Omar-Toons (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation
A mediation on the oldest universities was recently closed because, to my surprise, users who were once edit-warring refuse to discuss the issue anymore.

I noticed that your interest in the issue here and it seems we may disagree on this issue. Would you like to enter mediation with me?VR talk  15:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Autumn Meridian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Meridian


 * Spring Meridian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Meridian


 * Summer Meridian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Meridian


 * Winter Meridian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Meridian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Celestial spheres
I've reviewed Celestial spheres, which you nominated for good article status. Please let me know if anything in the review is unclear. Thanks for your hard work on the article. James McBride (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Alhazen=GA?
Just wanted to notify you that the issues you raised that allowed this article to be delisted as a GA have been cleared up, and I will nominate it again to retain GA status. Oakley77 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. Email's out. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest universities
Hello,

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Thank you.

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Metaphysical"
The word "metaphysics" in Wikipedia is reserved for scholarly and academic philosophers, not spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism. Please let's not mish-mash the two. It is a disservice to legitimate scholars and doesn't help the credibility of WP. Greg Bard (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess the main thing to understand about this situation is that the category "metaphysical cosmology" was being used for all the esoterism, and occult stuff. I wanted to disassociate that kind of stuff from the term "metaphysics" on WP, so I fixed that whole situation. You don't want those two articles in that category. You want them under the "physical cosmology" category tree, and it already is with "early scientific cosmology." Putting them back there isn't helping bring legitimacy to the term "metaphysics" and it also isn't portraying the subject matter of those two articles as scholarly. Greg Bard (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Indian Astronomy". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 01:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet wikiproject
See my talk page. One of his hobbyhorses. I emailed you a while back asking for an article but someone else found it, so ignore that. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Try to keep a lookout for any new editor doing funny things with related articles. Paul (who will probably read this) is trying to blackmail us into giving him an account by creating dozens of socks and hundreds of articles - some of his activities are not just article creation but sheer vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:EraNameStatistics.tif
Thanks for uploading File:EraNameStatistics.tif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=560348233 your edit] to Astrophysics may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * * Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity

Disambiguation link notification for June 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Astrophysics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)