Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradoxism-Neutrosophy

I'm relisting these articles (paradoxism and neutrosophy), as the vfd listing was accidentally clobbered by User:Wrendelgeth. I originally listed them at 06:15, 9 Jun 2004, and the paradoxism section, which had the votes, was clobbered at 03:26, 11 Jun 2004. I guess that these will be eligible for removal in, say, 3 days and some hours. I've pasted the previous votes immediately below; let's put new votes after that. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 05:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(under the paradoxism heading on vfd as of 03:26, 11 Jun 2004)
 * Vanity article promoting Florentin Smarandache. Every now and then an anonymous editor comes around to add more Smarandache promo material. Smarandache has a long, obnoxious history of promoting himself in various Internet forums and Wikipedia in particular, both in person and through sock puppets. This is just more of the same, and we can expect him to persist indefinitely. Away with it. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, just how notable is he? I think if he's notable enough to be included, his theories probably are, too, assuming they are something he is known for. Everyking 07:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * You'll find Smarandache all over the web, where he has placed advertisements in the mouths of sock puppets far and wide. He's exploited several means of free self promotion -- Usenet, Yahoo groups, mailing lists, Sloane's catalog of integer sequences, and, of course, Wikipedia. See User:Smarandache fan for starters, and then see the two VfD discussions at talk:Florentin Smarandache. In addition to the endless promo material, Smarandache might have a couple of peer reviewed publications; be that as it may, it's not enough for a notable reputation. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Given my respect for Wile E's POV, if he say this guy is a self-aggrandizer who's peppering the internet with attempts at free ads for what I presume to be questionable theories, I agree and vote to delete all. - Lucky 6.9 16:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. However it's so utterly bad, it might be worth knowing something about.CSTAR 22:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(under the Neutrosophy heading on vfd)
 * Vanity article promoting Florentin Smarandache. As with paradoxism. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * There's an incredibly long discussion on Talk:Neutrosophy from the last time this article was listed for deletion (which was a year ago). -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

''new votes here, please. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
 * I think Neutrosophy may be an idea with some value, but Wikipedia does not need all of this material. I can't vote to delete, but I would be in favor of trimming these articles down and merging them into a single NPOV entry. I understand that doing so would involve work, and whether or not it is worth it will be for others to decide, as I am not qualified or motivated to work on these articles. Nat 14:49, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-aggrandizement should not be rewarded. While Florentin Smarandache may be a legend in his own mind, I am wondering why there is even a Wiki article on him. After his untimely death, it may be appropriate to remember him as one of the most aggressively conceited people of his day, but it's like being a painter - you don't get rich until after you're dead. Denni &#9775; 23:38, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's not a dialectic development, but an idiosyncratic objection to it.  Fair enough, but the "notable" factor comes in the fact that the guy who coined the term organized a conference about himself and published the results in a vanity press.  I've known lots of people who have had deep thoughts and given names to them.  Some of them have self-published, too.  Some were even wealthy and bought presses and self-published.  Where are the peer-reviewed articles?  Where is the academic standing?  Where is the testimony from outside?  Geogre 18:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, or at least shorten the article and make it accurate:


 * Smarandache is an associate professor at (wherever). Through numerous postings on internet sites he has acquired a reputation for self-aggrandizement. Outside of a small circle of supporters, the value of his work is questioned. Hs mathematical work consists mainly of definitions, with no useful relation to any existing problem.CSTAR 17:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My Responses to Insults
I do not know who tried to make these articles on “paradoxism” (literary movement based on contradictions, antitheses, antinomies, paradoxes) or “neutrosophy”. I did not tell anybody to do so, since I knew the hostility of wikipedians, because of my previous arguments with them. Maybe, among the about 700 researchers that have published at least a paper of neutrosophic set or neutrosophic logic, somebody tried to make an entry. People in this Wikipedia Talk page, bring no scientific accusation to the terms of “paradoxism” and “neutrosophy” (sign that they did not know much, or maybe they knew nothing about them). They do only personal attacks on me because I have argued with them previously. Why, for example, an article about neutrosophy or neutrosophic set or neutrosophic logic would be considered a “vanity” one? Since I only published maybe less than 5% of the total publications on the topics. The remaining 95% of publications were published by researchers from around the world.
 * “Vanity article”

I was at the beginning in some Internet forums, mostly for curiosity when they started, but then I left them abruptly because of permanent fighting between members with different ideas, that often degenerated in insults. I have sent links or attached files with some of my publications, but such things did all forums’ members with respect to their own publications and ideas, not only me! For over a decade I am in no Internet forum, because it is a waste a time… History of promoting myself in Wikipedia is certainly untrue. Maybe it was the opposite, because of my arguments with the wikipedians. By the way, there were editorial wars between wikipedians themselves as well, and dispute problems between them on various entries and various ideas [not related to me]. Some of wikipedians got sad and left the editing process.
 * “history of promoting himself in various Internet forums and Wikipedia”

People that dared to say positive things about me or my work were immediately labelled “sock puppets”, in order to discourage them. But we live in a democratic society, therefore people have the right to express different ideas from those of wikipedians. Let’s aboard with empathy opposite ideas of ours.
 * “he has placed advertisements in the mouths of sock puppets far and wide”; “Smarandache fan”


 * “Smarandache might have a couple of peer reviewed publications”

This is far from the truth. I have published 350+ papers, most of them in peer-reviewed international journals. Since 1986 I have presented and published 100+ papers at tens of first rank international conference around the world and at high institutions (University of Berkeley, NASA, NATO, U.S. Air Force Laboratory etc.). I contributed also to over 50 international and national journals, such as: Physics Research Journal C: Quantum Physics (Calabria, Italy) [editor]; International Journal of Geometry (Bacau, Romania) [associate editor]; New Mathematics and Natural Computation (World Scientific, Singapore-London) [editor]; Progress in Physics (UNM, USA; associate editor), Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research (editor), Libertas Mathematica (Arlington, University of Texas, USA); American Mathematical Monthly; Mathematics Magazine; College Mathematical Journal; Crux Mathematicorum (Canada); Zentralblatt Für Mathematik (Germany; Reviewer for the Elementary Number Theory: Romanian, French, English); Omar El Khayam (Tunisia); Alpha (Germany); Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde (Holland); Elemente der Mathematik (Switzerland); Intelligencer (Gottingen, Germany); Gazeta Matematică (seriile A & B); Ştiinţă şi Tehnică, Magazin (Bucharest), RMT (Timişoara) [in editorial board]; Licăriri, Năzuinţe (editor); Caiet 32, Alpha (Craiova) [in editorial board], Beta, Programul de volei, Programul de fotbal (Craiova), Gamma (Brasov); Mugur alb, ABC (Bacau); Caiet de informare matematică (Câmpina, Romania; associate editor); Revista Micilor Matematicieni (Neamţ); Omega (Slatina); Matematikai Lapok (Cluj-Napoca); Sfera (Băileşti) [in editorial board]; Revista de Matematică din Băileşti (associate editor); Caietul metodic al elevilor din Vâlcea (Rm. Vâlcea); Pi Mu Epsilon Journal (USA); Cardinal (Revista de Matematica din Craiova; collaborator), Matematica în Liceu, Matematica în Gimnaziu (Craiova); Notices of the American Mathematical Society (USA); World Federation Newsletter (Canberra, Australia); Gaceta Matematica (Madrid, Spain); Teme şi teste de matematic (Rm. Vâlcea); The Fibonacci Quarterly (Westford, MA); Octogon (Săcele, Romania; associate editor); Pan Matematica (Rm. Vâlcea); Matematica în liceu (Craiova); Test / Admiterea în Facultate (Craiova); MxM / Revistă de Matematică pentru Completarea Manualelor Şcolare (Slatina, Romania; correspondent member); Foaie Matematică (Chişinău, Moldova); Humanistic Mathematics Network (Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA); Math Power (Pima Community College, Tucson, AZ; associate editor); Recreational & Educational Computing (Clarks Summit, PA); AMATYC Journal (USA); Axioma (editor; Plopeni, Romania); Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences – Mathematics & Physics (Delhi, India; associate editor); Studii şi Cercetări Ştiintifice, University of Bacău, Romania (associate editor); International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Roorkee, India, (editor-in-chief); International Journal of Tomography & Statistics (IJTS) (editor); Information & Security: An International Journal (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria) [guest editor, together with J. Dezert, for Vol. 20, 2006, dedicated to DSmT]; The Antiphysical Review (Bucharest, Romania); Review of the Air Force Academy (The Scientific Informative Review) (among Scientific Advisers).

At your request, I can send the whole list of published papers, conferences etc.


 * “self-aggrandizer” + “Smarandache all over the web”

I uploaded many of my papers and books, besides my university’s website, also at Academia.edu (American scientific site) that has 40+ millions researchers, and at ResearchGate.net (German scientific site) that has 20+ millions researchers. These are open sources, so anybody from the world can download papers and books from other people, ask questions, give answers, make projects etc. It looks that there were people that took from my publications and put them in other sites, without my knowledge. This, actually, happens to many researchers. For example, I even discovered online libraries selling my books, without telling me anything and without paying me any financial benefit.

If I am “self-aggrandizer”, then all other 40+ millions or 20+ millions researchers are also “self-aggrandizer”.


 * somebody [named “Nat”] wrote “I think Neutrosophy may be an idea with some value”

There were wikipedians that appreciated the entry on Neutrosophy, but they were brained washed by others using personal attacks on me only, not critics on neutrosophy itself. Now may “Nat” be labelled “suck poppet” because he or she dared to say something positive?


 * “It's not a dialectic development, but an idiosyncratic objection to it."

I disagree. Dialectics studies the dynamics of opposites (let’s call them  and its opposite ). Neutrosophy is not “an idiosyncratic objection to it”, since neutrosophy does not criticize the dialectics. Neutrosophy extends the dialectics to: dynamics of opposites and of their neutralities (let’s call them , , and ). Neutrosophy is not done just for the sake of extending the dialectics, but because it often occurs in of our reality. For example: if it’s a war between two countries, some neutral countries interfere in one side or in another. When North Korea fought against South Korea (here it is dialectics, or dynamics of opposites), neutral countries like U. S. and Western Countries intervened on the side of South Korea, while Russia and China intervened on the side of North Korea (now we have neutrosophy). Therefore, the neutralities play a roll into the dynamic of opposites.


 * “organized a conference about himself and published the results in a vanity press.”

It was an electronic conference about generalization from the fuzzy sets and intuitionistic fuzzy sets to neutrosophic sets, not about myself, and the results, through Proquest Information & Learning (from Ann Arbor, MI) which is not a vanity press, were published online at UNM. UNM has encouraged me to organize this conference.

That’s false. I am a full-professor.
 * “Smarandache is an associate professor”

This wikipedian is completely out of subject and he did not read anything on neutrosophy, neutrosophic set or neutrosophic logic. Under the cover of anonymity or of fake names, such editors can lie and denigrate people. There are lots of applications ( see http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/neutrosophy.htm ), such as: applications to robotics, control theory, sensor fusion, multi-criteria decision making, color image segmentation, image categorization, medical diagnosis, applications to physics, neutrosophic cognitive maps used in social sciences, Discrimination of Outer Membrane Proteins using Reformulated Support Vector Machine based on Neutrosophic Set, Semantic Web Services Agent, Remedy for Effective Cure of Diseases using Combined Neutrosophic Relational Maps, Qualitative Causal Reasoning On Complex Systems, Neutrosophic Logic to Answer Queries in Relational Database, Ensemble Neural Networks Using Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Bagging, Lithofacies Classification, Neutrosophy in situation analysis, Deployment of neutrosophic technology to retrieve answer for queries posed in natural language, Neutrosophic approach of MRI denoising etc. Please do not delete. Readers have the right to know my opinion too ( http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/FlorentinSmarandache.htm.). Thank you. (Florentin Smarandache) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlSmarandache (talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * “no useful relation to any existing problem”