Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination)

No threaded comments
The purpose of these restrictions is that the fact that we allow an unspecified degree of threaded discussion, repeated comments, etc, on an AFD normally has led to strife in this instance because of people disagreeing on where the line is drawn. This is not an attempt to suppress discussion, it can still go on without interference here on the talk page. --Random832 (contribs) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. Good luck with that. Last time I tried that, I said the exact same thing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you _caused_ the problem by not applying consistent rules. Which normally works fine, WP:IAR, but something about this situation is clearly different. And also - more importantly - it wasn't said up front where discussion should take place. --Random832 (contribs) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, oh bastion of chastity and justice. God forbid well-intentioned users try to fix problems - they are surely the cause of all of your misery and suffering. Do you have a stool? I'm having trouble getting myself up on this cross you've set up for me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good intentions are fine, but we all know what road is paved with them. And I could hardly be saying that it's your fault that it wasn't said up front that discussion would be moved - who could have known in advance that it would happen? --Random832 (contribs) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think saying that Cheeser1 caused the problems is going a bit far... SamBC(talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the problem is we have no clearly-defined standards for what does or not belong on an AFD, so I'm saying that in the interest of keeping things simple, for this AFD, nothing belongs on it except for simple keep/delete rationales. --Random832 (contribs) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the history behind these AfDs and the endless ANI thread, I support this. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. Try WP:SOAP. Rants about "Wackopedia" and secret administrator conspiracies to ruin science have no place anywhere on the Wiki. Disruptive behavior doesn't need to be explicitly and precisely listed in some policy. His "contributions" to the last AfD were highly disruptive, and everybody knows it. When I tried to fix it, it got worse and when I asked for help, nobody intervened until the closing. How is that my fault? Is it the horns on my head, or my little goat beard, or perhaps something else? --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The line between a legitimate argument and "soapboxing" is about as clear as mud and you know it. And stop trying to make it out to be as if anyone is saying it's your "fault" - it's no-one's fault, this was poorly handled all around. --Random832 (contribs) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the point where all the fingers were pointed at me. And the line may be blurred, but there are still obvious cases, and an essay titled "Wikipedia or Wackopedia" in which nothing is added to an AfD except general criticism of conspiracies of administrators and science-haters is hardly a grey-area case. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You took quite a few fingers to be pointed at you that were actually pointed elsewhere. I understand why, but it makes you come across as over-defensive. Jpmonroe (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this will work, really. People might not come here before breaking that "rule".  You might want to bold the message directing people here at the top.  I don't believe that it will be as large a problem this time anyway, since more experienced editors will be keeping an eye on it.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * God help you if you dare suppress the opinion of experts, oh ye destroyers of science. Be sure to besmirch the reputations of as many people as you can when you remove their important contributions to Wackopedia Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Paul Pieniezny

 * To User: Paul Pieniezny regarding his argument for notability on the deletion page: who exactly are those ``experts" that will be visiting ``Myrzakulov's institute"? Are you suggesting that there is real interest in the academic community for these ``results"? Also, you stated in the last AFD that some people would be afraid that "US scientists will find out about Myrzakulov and visit him" - what is that supposed to mean? I live and work in the US, in this very field, and I know almost everybody of relevance in the area. Everybody I asked confirmed that Myrzakulov is a non-entity in our field. Please enlighten us and clarify your post - since you use it to establish ``notability". (Proscience) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.96.184 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I really have to verbally repeat everything I mentioned last time? The names are De Witt Sumners and Avraham Soffer. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just I want make more precise. Prof. De Witt Sumners (which is the world known scientist in his research field) is the coadvisor of two Myrzakulov's PhD students. Avraham Soffer which also very well-known scientist is planed but is not coadvisor of our students. Barstaw (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on this information, De Witt Sumners cannot be considered an independent referee for the work in question. Same for Soffer, if he is in close connection with De Witt Sumners. --Proscience (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To the AFD admins: I would like to point out that Paul Pieniezny's entry on the deletion page does not contain any evidence for his claim. On that page, the only reference to Myrzakulov which does not come directly from him or Ngn, is an article published (?) in a Polish journal, not listed by the 2006 Journal Citation Reports, i.e. practically non-existing. (Proscience)
 * Er, the links given by User:JJl are real, (the PDF does not load very quickly, I agree), the figures I and others gave last time were real and the University of Brussels did really index those references. My last remark here, as I do not like the ambiance. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I go, let me explain some of my uneasiness: this "Polish Journal" is the journal of the Mathematics Institute of the second oldest university in central Europe. Before Perestrojka, the journal had a Polish name - whether that influences any ranking, I do not know (I cannot access this JCR/Web of Knowledge site). I do know that the author, Lucjan Sapa, also used the term in "Marian Malec, Lucjan Sapa. "A finite difference method for nonlinear parabolic-elliptic systems of second-order partial differential equations". OPUSCULA MATHEMATICA, v.27, №2, pp.259-289 (2007)" (that's from a university college in Cracow. And then there are the Chinese quotes. What about WP:BIAS? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The " links given by User:JJl" point to 3 articles having among authors Myrazukov and/or Ngn. The "second oldest ..." information has no relevance regarding the scientific status of the journal. Web of Science (and other respectable databases) keep track of thousands of publications, over many decades, and calculate relevance factors such as citation index, lifetime of articles, etc. A journal not listed in that database (and they have many) is not relevant (according to these criteria), and that's due to the quality of its content. --Proscience (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am now editing at a computer from a University College (the only reason why I am still intervening) and I still cannot access your database, while I can access others (like the University of Brussels), so I will add WP:VERIFIABILITY to my concerns. You haven't answered my point about WP:BIAS. How many journals in that database are (in) Polish, Kazakh or Chinese? The term seems notable in Polish, Kazakh and Chinese academia. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Web of Science maintains records for 6166 journals worldwide. 54 of them are in Polish. Their impact factors range from 2.974 (highest) to 0.062 (lowest). Note that the highest rated journal in Web of Science has a factor of 63.342, and the lowest (several) have 0. The journal you are referring to is not listed at all - not even with impact factor 0. (Proscience) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.96.184 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Acta Mathematica of the Jagiello University of Cracow, ie "Universitatis Iagellonicae Acta Mathematica" (I hope that is the one you were looking for, since I cannot verify, and perhaps it may be there under its Polish name) is mentioned by the French CNRS: . It is NOT an "obscure paper" only available in Cracow and Brussels. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not listed under either name. You need subscription to access the database - many institutions worldwide have it. I also know that in several Central and Easter European countries, the "ISI" score given by Web of Science to a journal is the criterion used to rank scientific relevance of a researcher's work. (Proscience)


 * I haven't seen any evidence of coverage in a peer reviewed journal, only a passing reference in one obscure paper. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the examples below, these look to me more like passing references to Myrzakulov's work rather than to these equations as Myrzakulov equations. None look like in depth critical coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing cited seems to establish that these are in any way akin in notability to truly encyclopedic laws or equations. Edison (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Landau-Lifshitz
Landau-Lifshitz equation (a disambiguation, and I was unsure which of these was being referred to), Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation, Landau–Lifshitz model exist, but could probably stand to be improved. --Random832 (contribs) 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The author of the article

 * New AfD?! OK. I'm creator of the article Myrzakulov equations.  At present there are several  wikiarticles related with it: Landau-Lifshitz model,   Ishimori equation, Landau-Lifshitz equation and  Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation. But these articles also need improvements in this stage. Also I will try do something in this direction. Barstaw (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is preposterous: saying that these articles are ``related" to your entry is a ridiculous attempt to elevate the importance of your text. Any new result you might have reported belongs to the class of spin dynamics known as Heisenberg model, Landau-Lifshitz equation, etc. (Proscience) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.96.184 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Proscience, You are right in the following sense: Heisenberg model, LLE, Ishimori equation, Mikhailov-Yaremchuk equation, these ME belong to the class of spin systems. So in the previous comment just I informed you and Arthur Rubin that these two articles exist. There no any other sense or aspects. Let users (including you) decide  important or not important, notable or notnotable  the article or these equations.  Personally I not want any elevation the importance of my text (that is the article). So I would like ask you please stop any discussions (and attacks) about:
 * the creater of the article
 * the author of the equations
 * other users.

Otherwise, I'm afraid that this discussion will be same as the last AfD. Finally I would like sorry but one more ask you, dear Proscience and your wife User: Antignom please help me and correct my english which less than poor english. Barstaw (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I do not have the time for this. I can explain to you, though, that the original meaning of "preposterous" is literally, "in the wrong order". In my opinion, the relevant part of your text belongs in a small subsection of an article on Landau-Lifshitz equations, to be written. --Proscience (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Proscience,
 * a) First please find time to correct my english (sorry just I ask you and your wife).
 * b) Second, having now 4 wikiarticles on spin systems and ... we  are in position of "in the right order". Barstaw (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To user Relata refero (disp.). You are not right. At present there are several equations for spin dynamics such as: Landau-Lifshitz, Heisenberg ferromagnets, Ishimori, Myrzakulov, Mikhailov-Yaremchuk and etc  equations. These equations describe nonlinear dynamics of spin systems in the different physical cases. Also these equations are not some variants of well-known equations and in this sense can deserve an encyclopaedia article.  About "no sufficiently independent sources" please see  . Barstaw (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To Proscience . I not asserted and not assert that Prof. De Witt Sumners and others are a referee  in question. Here very different and not related questions. I asked and one more ask you and your wife, not discuss any persons and not admits personal moments in your comments. We can and must discuss just about the article and/or equations.  This is the topic of our discussions.  And come to the decision "Keep" or "Delete".  Only this!!!. Sorry I one more ask you and your wife correct english of my comments. I think this work takes just some minutes for each of my comments. OK?!. Barstaw (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To "poor man" from "poor woman"

 * To R_Physicist. In your msg to The Rationalist (talk) I found the following comments " I am not participating anymore, but feel somewhat sorry for this poor woman, N.G. Nugmanova (author of the the article), with her "Russian conspiracy" paranoia" . I hope that I will find you and will has possibility to prove you "poor" or "antipoor". Moreover I think that you are really poor man.  Although I respect you as a senior scientist.  But here I not about it. I never used the term  "Russian conspiracy" (please read all my comments on these 3 AfD). I think that here not exist any "Russian conspiracy", "Kazakh conspiracy" or any other "conspiracies".  I wrote just about 2 russian users which asserted for example that "Myrzakulov equations not exist" or like that.  I personally inform you that I have many russian friends and relatives here. And some members of our group are russians. We, kazakhs, love them.  So here no any national aspects. Any other assertions about "Russian conspiracy" are just consequences of your paranoia logic. Sorry I not would like any such kind comments. Just I can not  not answer on your above mentioned comments. Barstaw (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The fulll message (which was really meant to assist you):
 * I am not participating anymore, but feel somewhat sorry for this poor woman, .. (author of the article), with her "Russian conspiracy" paranoia. Perhaps you, or someone else, could gently help her with this by pointing out that there is a very easy way to determine the geographical location of any anonymous IP address, using one of the standard IP address locator services available on the net. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC) (alias: "R Physicist")


 * To R_Physicist. But in your message were  words "poor woman" and "her  "Russian conspiracy" paranoia". Also can you comment some informations from my msg to MickMacNee in the section "Author's language difficulties". Barstaw (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings R_Physicists. If you disagree with me on "Myrzakulov equations" you can improve the articles which were created not me personally and not devoted to these Myrzakulov equations. I speak about articles on  Landau-Lifshitz equation. What is problem?  Same requests I sent to "younger expert" Proscience. Barstaw (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * To Proscience, his wife, R_Physicist and other users-experts!!!  If you are real experts in the area of nonlinear phys and/or math (as you are asserted many times), Instead of these "fruitfull" comments and 3-4 AfD, Let us jointly edit 5-6 existing magnetic wikiarticles:  Landau-Lifshitz model,   Ishimori equation, Landau-Lifshitz equation, Heisenberg ferromagnets, Myrzakulov equations and  Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation.  This is my suggestion for you. Are you agree with me? Barstaw (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To Proscience, his wife, R_Physicist and other users-experts!!!  If you accept my suggestion (jointly edit these spinarticles)  please  e-mai me. lifebaka has my e-mail. Barstaw (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To user Hans Adler, I respect personally you and   your opinion but why such cheap polemics as  "... keep because Myrzakulov got a Nobel price for the formulas..."  that not adorn you. It very like with the other polemics (of our common "friend" R-Physicist)  "...  is set side by side with Nobel Prize winner Lev Landau, and incorporated on an equal footing in a Wikipedia article about the Landau-Lifschitz equations".  As you know that I not want any polemics like that and not want continue any discussion in this direction. But I would like remind one more that after the last AfD here were created additionally 3 article on spin systems
 * Landau-Lifshitz equation (LLE) (creater R.e.b.)
 * Ishimori equation (IE) (creater Barstaw that is I (alias "Ngn"))
 * Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation (LLGE) (creater R.e.b.).

Also I created the article Dispersionless equation. So what I want tell you that creating these 2 articles on Ishimori and Myrzakulov equations I not going to set Ishimori and Myrzakulov "side by side with Nobel Prize winner Lev Landau". There are exist around 200 Nobel Prize winners but also there are exist 1000 named equations. What about remaining 800=1000-200 scientists which obtained some equations notable, not so notable or not notable? I think most of them including Ishimori and Myrzakulov are not candidates to "Nobel Prize". But we can create an articles about these equations. Not more! Barstaw (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

About "senior scientist" or experts
Unfortunately R-Physicist deleted his user page. Why? (This is a question). In March he wrote to me and to other users "Godbye". But he returned.(This is a second question). OK it is his problems. In his deleted original user page he wrote that he have around 120 publications and work in the area nonlinear phys and math (May be I have some mistaken here I not remember exactly). I really believe him in this. But I have some doubts in other aspects. From his comments follows that he is an expert in the area of spin systems (at least he claim as it seems). But it seems me after these 2 AfD that in fact R_Physicist is not expert (!) in the area of spin systems if even he is "senoir scientist". I one more carefully reading his comments in both Afd but I not found in his opinion  nothing. From expert's of point of view his opinion is empty. Just very long hysterical polemics arount the terms "self-promotion" or "self-advertisement" and so on. Nothing more! Personally I am a little even very, very little scientist in this area (but I really  work in this area in contrast with R_Physicist). As I mentioned after the last AfD that in WP were created 3 articles on the subject. So for today we have 4 wikiarticles on spin systems: Landau-Lifshitz equation, Ishimori equation, Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation, Myrzakulov equations. I carefully reading the history of these 4 articles on spin systems. But I not found any contributions from "senior scientist" R-Physicist or from young scientists Proscience and his wife (User: Antignom). Why? (This is an another question for me). And I invited R-Physicist, Proscience and his wife (and other users who are an experts on the subject) jointly edit these 4 articles. But I not received any responses from these 3 "experts". Why?! (This is a last question for me). Bye and sorry for my poor english. Barstaw (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep-Delete problem

 * As the sole creator of the article I think and ask you, dear users, Keep the article. Here my arguments are same with  the Michael Hardy's. I agree that my article is not a high-priority article, but legitimate. It require some improvements and I try to work in this direction. But I have some problems including language problem. This is why  I invited  anybody which are more or less experts in the topic and have good english,  help me to edit the article. Barstaw (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To nominator

 * To nominator. One of main arguments of some "experts" were that there are not any articles on Landau-Lifshitz equations (LLE) which must be before than any other articles on other equations. That is here was  "in the wrong order".  In some sense in this point I agree with them.  But after the last AfD were created 3 articles on  LLE (Of course I think that these articles also need some improvements).  So we now can wait that these "experts"  will do something to improve these  articles. R_Physicist actively participates in this debate but prefering the outside of the scene.  Also his making in some sense the pressure to other users using as if his "senior scientist" or "senior expert".  In fact he is not expert in the theory of classical spin systems. Proscience and his wife also not did any contibutions for the LLE article. What happens with you dear "experts"? Also this a question for you dear dominator. Barstaw (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

R_Physicist is a deceiver?
Some examples of frauds from this "senior scients" and "senior expert":
 * Example-1. His claiming that his is an expert in this area. But in fact his is not expert on the classical theory of spin systems (as well as Proscience with some member of his family);
 * Example-2. He was the nominator of the last AfD. So in the end of the previous AfD his wrote that he nominated on 22 March. But as noted by Travis his nomination was actually on 20 March.

In fact R_Physicist   is  very  unhappy and   poor man with paranoia and trivial logic (and ending his earthly life)  if even he has more than 100 articles. That is why I want forgive his for calling me "poor woman". But I would like not continue any discussions in this direction. Barstaw (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples of use
A list of examples of the use of this term can be found at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/ME examples. Barstaw, please do not re-add them to the article itself again. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. You are right. These Examples also can be found at User talk: Barstaw. Barstaw (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Basis of authority to set up a gag rule?
I do not see on what basis someone can set new rules which apply only in a particular AFD stating how many comments other editors can make in the AFD process, or stating that once someone has !voted they can only comment here on the talk page. Was there some ruling by Arbcom or other authoritative body? Which AFDs in the past have been subject to this gag rule? If a misstatement in a particular Keep or Delete argument requires additional comment by someone who has previously placed a Keep or Delete argument on the project page, they are entitled to add it there as much as in any other AFD. If they want to chit-chat here as well, they are certainly welcome to do so. The previous AFDs for this were certainly not the longest or most contentious I have seen. Edison (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have complained about this gag rule at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where this AFD and the previous ones are being discussed in the section "New AFD." SPAs should be identified on the main page, not here. Crystal ball arguments, "other crappy articles exist" arguments, "I like it " arguments and their ilk need to be noted on the main page, adjacent to the Keep/Delete argument in question, as has been done in thousands of other AFDs, not in a segregated "free speech zone" like this. Edison (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Crystal ball arguments, "other crappy articles exist" arguments, "I like it " arguments and their ilk need to be noted on the main page, You think the closing admin is going to be illiterate, and needs you to hold their hand to tell when an argument is one of those? --Random832 (contribs) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How many admins are there, and how clueless do you suppose the least clueful is who might stumble on a given AFD? It doesn't harm the project to identify via appropriate comments any illfounded reasons for keeping or deleting, or misrepresentations of references or journal citations right where they occur on the main page. And why is this the only AFD deserving of a gag rule, and who is authorized to impose such a rule without a consensus somewhere? Edison (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From "R Physicist" to the author of the article nominated for deletion
Please stop seeking to focus the debate on the personal identities of the scientists who have criticized the substance of your article. This criticism has been spelled out adequately earlier on, and could be further elaborated, but this could only be done meaningfully within a forum of experts, which this, for the most part, is not. The conclusions, based on the judgment of those who are adequately qualified to do so, are that the article is lacking in merit, both in scientific content, and in notability. Setting aside any questions of motivation, these are adequate reasons for its deletion. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")
 * Welcome "senior scientist" and "senoir expert". I'm very really happy to hear you here. In fact you (and Proscience with some members of his family) are not experts on the theory of classical spin systems. Claiming that you are "senior scientist" and "senoir expert" in this narrow area of nonlinear phys/math you fraud wikicommunity especially notexpert-users and your younger colleagues which believeing you voted "delete".  It is not good for any serious scientists especially working at the well-known International Scientific Center as your CRM. I respect CRM and a well-known experts working at CRM. I know many of the members of MathPhysLab of CRM are in fact a world leaders in the area of nonlinear math and phys. I'm learning   reading their scientific publications. But you are exception. In fact you are the mistake of the Nature. And I can add that I'm really "poor woman"  but just in science (In this you are right). In any case I want to meet with you in real life. Let us?  Where and When? If you not agree we here will find you (and Proscience with his wife) by ourself not asking you. Barstaw (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To 'senior expert". Yes I want the personal identities. Since you and Proscience with his wife  already identified the creator of the article and the author of the equations. So here must be some justice. OK?  So please  open your real name immediately! Otherwise we here will find your and Proscience real name and physical locations without any your help. In either case we here will have full informations about you. It is just time problems.  We will do this independently the results of this AfD. Barstaw (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, as the "history" of the article shows, the author identified herself by using her real-life name as her user account name as of the date of the article's creation (Jan. 6, 2008).  There was therefore never any question about her identity. Within this setting, people may choose to identify themselves, or to remain anonymous, or quasi-anonymous, whichever they prefer; there may be good reasons for each. It is not for others to decide this for them.132.205.67.123 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on a previous posting by "R Physicist"

 * I'm sure you've been directed to it in previous discussions, but Scholarpedia is probably closer to what you think Wikipedia is/should be. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to the above comment. I don't know what Wikipedia should be, but an article consisting of no more than a list of equations that are purported to be of scientific interest can only be judged on the basis of its scientific merits, no matter where it is published. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")

Google Scholer etc
A user makes the point that these equations have been cited elsewhere possibly under a different name. That may or may not be so, but I don't believe it is the place of normal editors to be able to determine this. These assertions of notability, if valid and correct, should already be in the article to prevent an Afd. If they were, the Afd might go a different way, but given the length of time the people who do know how to use Google scholer etc have had to do this, I ask why it hasn't occured. And there is nothing to stop this being added even now. Not being cited by the article name also begs the question as to why the equations should be listed under this title if they are kept on WP at all, if no-one citing them sees fit to credit their creator by his preferred common name for them. MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be the pith of it. Myrzakulov is cited here and there in the literature, mostly in passing, which is understandable but I've seen no support to show these equations are cited as the Myrzakulov equations by anyone other than Myrzakulov. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An example of a passing reference is here (cached as HTML here ). The citations by Nugmanova (e.g. ) are not self-citations though of course there's reason to be suspicious. These are getting into refereed journals--if the language was nonstandard they'd likely be taken to task for it. JJL (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My take on this: if the creator of an article is really here to improve Wikipedia with his/her contributions, they will not mind a re-name, provided there is a mention somewhere of the name they wanted but which is too controversial. In this case I would suggest putting "also sometimes called Myrzakulov equations" in the lead. That would mean no re-direct is necessary (I suppose the deletionists would not want an article "Myrzakulov equations" even if it was merely a re-direct) and the Polish article can be an inline reference to that (to the creator of the article: do not worry, I know how to make inline references). --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about procedural renominations
As a procedural renomination, should'nt the votes at the previous Afd be carried over (minus any dentified socks etc)? And I agree with the above commentator that while threaded discussion should be avoided, the standard notifications should be allowed. MickMacNee (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so, since the discussion was so fogged and this isn't a vote, but a discussion. As for allowing SPA notes, why not bring them up here and strike them from the project page as needed? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But as a procedural renomination, no new case is being made, therefore previous votes on the latest grounds for nomination, no matter how derailed the discussion got, should really be counted here in my view. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The procedural renomination was made because the discussion was disrupted and distorted. The helpfulness of that discussion can be questioned. Some editors may have been misled and made comments other than what they'd make this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is this R Physicist?
(comment copied from project page, with threaded discussion here)
 * Two comments. 1. Who is this R Physicist? Unless we know his name and credentials, his opinion means nothing. 2. This article has notability problems. Whoever made this article, he should clearly explain why these equations are notable in words understandable for a University student, with in line references to third-party sources. Then this article could stay.Biophys (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The identity of R Physicist was disclosed in previous deletion debates, ANI entries, etc. He is a well-known expert in this field, a prestigious prize-winning mathematical physicist, who has been working in this area for over 35 years, has authored over 100 papers with many citations, is a professor at a well-known university, on the editorial board of a specialized journal and leads a prestigious international research center. I could go on ... (Proscience)
 * Greetings Proscience. Many thanks for your information on R_Physicist. Now we will and can identify  R_Physicist. Just it take some time. But we here  not finished our  work to identify you and/or your wife.  It means here we want have your physical address.  In any case we will recover your and R_Physicist  home and office locations may be after some time (weeks, months, one year ..). Concluding I ask you and your wife (really sorry for that) please correct my poor english. Barstaw (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Note: I have indef blocked Barstaw for this threat. Threatening to find the home and office address of other contributors is appalling and unacceptable behavior and will not be tolerated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a short comment. I wondered if Barstaw's comments should be considered a threat, but in this special case I decided against it, based on several factors. R physicist was initially quite open about his identity, I guess he just didn't want our negative reactions to him to be found when googling his name. Barstaw's real-life identity is known to R physicist and dozens of others. And she has serious problems expressing herself in English.
 * Her behaviour cannot be excused, but it can be explained. While R physicist complained about the way he was treated here, he and Proscience have treated Barstaw with no mercy or respect for her as a fellow human being and not much respect. If I had been in her position I would have been extremely worried about my academic career. It seems that for some reason she could not do the right thing and back down. But still, this was as much a problem with experts having a strong ego and no online interpersonal skills coming to Wikipedia as it was a Barstaw/COI problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) (edited 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC))
 * In the meantime I have learned more and I see some things differently now. Based on my current, still incomplete, understanding, I would certainly not make these comments. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do not find the above sufficiently sinister to be considered a threat, what do you think of her other comments, under the headings R_Physicist is a deceiver? and From "R Physicist" to the author of the article nominated for deletion.? 24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")
 * Reply to Hans Adler's comment above: you are making rather inflammatory remarks regarding my exchanges with Barstaw. Please indicate at which point I did not treat her as a "fellow human being". From my side, the discussion was conducted properly, within the rules of scientific debates. In exchange, she harassed me with repeated personal "requests" of an increasingly aggressive nature, long after I made it clear that I do not consider her articles worth improving. Now I am being targeted with direct threats, which I am taking very seriously. I believe Barstow misunderstood the fact that I (and other contributors who became her targets) ignored her recent attacks as a sign of intimidation. It is most certainly not the case. --Proscience (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wrote in an email to R Physicist that I wouldn't comment here, in order not to draw any further attention to this AfD (which is basically over, with a result of "delete"). Since you have revived it (now it will appear on people's watchlists again), let me add that when I wrote the above comment I had not seen Barstaw's other comments pointed out by R Physicist in response to me. I have reread your comments to the second AfD. It's clear that my memory wasn't fair to you. I apologise. I can see nothing wrong with the way you expressed your opinion and I shouldn't have mentioned you in this context at all.
 * What I should have said is actually a much weaker point, but I think still valid: Wikipedia is not the place to expose scientific missteps. Some editors here are anonymous experts, some are experts who contribute under their real name, and most are clueless. And it's public, with a very high Google rank even for the discussion pages. People come here with completely opposite expectations. Many scientists are surprised how low our notability standards are, when they find out. If every Pokemon character (or animal? what are they?) gets its own article (I believe this has been stopped), then why not the Myrzakulov equations? If Myrzakulov is your teacher and you admire him for his accomplishments this seems to make a lot of sense. Shit happens, and usually it happens as a result of misunderstandings. That's why we have the guideline Assume good faith.
 * I made a wrong judgement about you, and I hurt you. Sorry. Now what if you and your wife and R physicist made a wrong judgement about Barstaw? If it was all just a misunderstanding, then it would easily have been resolved if you had met in real life. If it was a serious misstep, then Wikipedia was not the right place to expose it, even if it meant that it wouldn't be exposed at all. Because the internet is not supposed to ruin academic careers. I hope this makes sense. By the way, you can also contact me by email, by following the link from my user page to my home page in Leeds. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Requests for Proscience, a) please sign your comments; b) let us go the talk page and move your this comments and my to the talk page.

Question for you: R_Physicist, you and I work in the area of nonlinear phys and math. But this is a wide area now. So you can write what is your and RP narrow areas of research. Meantime I work in the area of classical spin systems (Of course I not claim that I is a well-known or known expert. Just really Im a very little person in this area). Barstaw (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! Someone just moved my neutral comment from an AfD page. What is going on here? This is worse than discussions of genocide articles. That has nothing to do with science.Biophys (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've copied the comment back, without the discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Anybody can help me to identify R_Physicist and Proscience? May be somebody know which is R_Physicist among the following members of Math Phys  Lab of CRM ? If you can help me please e-mail me.  Also how I can recover his  physical address using his IP address? Barstaw (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To R_Physicist. In your msg to user The Rationalist  (User talk:The Rationalist)  I found the following comments " I am not participating anymore, but feel somewhat sorry for this poor woman, N.G. Nugmanova (author of the the article), with her "Russian conspiracy" paranoia" . I hope that I will find you and will has possibility to prove you "poor" or "antipoor" moments. Moreover I think that you are really poor man.  Although I respect you as a senior scientist.  But here I not about it. I never used the term  "Russian conspiracy" (please read all my comments on these 3 AfD). I think that here not exist any "Russian conspiracy", "Kazakh conspiracy" or any other "conspiracies".  I wrote just about 2 russian users which asserted for example that "Myrzakulov equations not exist" or like that.  I personally inform you that I have many russian friends and relatives here. And some members of our group are russians. We, kazakhs, love them.  So here no any national aspects. Any other assertions about "Russian conspiracy" are just consequences of your paranoia and trivial logic. Sorry I not would like any such kind comments. Just I can not  not answer on your above mentioned comments. Barstaw (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note here, but it would be nice if you could be careful with your language. Things like "I think that you are really poor man" could be interpreted as personal attacks, which are not a good idea to use.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In this I'm fully agree with you. Sorry. But this "senior scientist" provoke me writing "poor woman" ... Barstaw (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question for R_Physicists: You know that one of russian users, my "friend",  [RedAndr (which is Andrew Ryzhkov)] which deleted my article in RuWiki and did and doing same work in these AfD? By the way he  work in the same city with you that is in Montreal, Canada (McGill University)   (!) (this is a question for me). Barstaw (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Author's language difficulties
If the author realy does have that much difficulty in using English to assert notability of his article, how about he republishes this article on the wikipedia of his native languague (Russian?), and then the translation projects transfer it to here? Or is that too simple? After all, it's not like the equations need translating is it? MickMacNee (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To MickMacNee, Thank you very much for a nice idea. But I already used this variant.  I remind that for the first time I created the same article with the same title in RuWiki (that is in russian).  But here I found two younger users:
 * 1) 85.140.89.48 (talk) who is in fact Dmitry Rozhkov (see f.i. and )
 * 2) RedAndr (see f.i. and ).

User 85.140.89.48 (talk)=Dmitry Rozhkov is an expert on robots. RedAndr is a chemist. So both users are not experts in this area of nonlinear science. With the help of these two "friends" my article was deleted in RuWiki. By the way I note that RedAndr (which is Andrew Ryzhkov) work in the same city with R_Physics that is in Montreal, Canada (McGill University) Canada. May they knows each other? Also it is interesting to note that the first nominator of my article 85.140.89.48 (talk)=Dmitry Rozhkov has the following political opinion "Этот участник считает США Империей Зла" (see ) which can be translated as "This participant considers the USA as Empire of the Harm". Very difficult to work with such nominators. Personally I not agree with the user 85.140.89.48 (talk)=Dmitry Rozhkov about USA. I respect and love USA.

Then I created the same article in EnWiki. But one of my younger "friends" nominated for deletion without any "Rationale for deletion"  that is Dmitry Rozhkov was a nominator of the first AfD. It is interesting to note that one of his main arguments for deletion was "Myrzakulov equations not exist". Another interesting moment. In their correspondence between themselves they wrote each to other " ... their next task is to delete this article in EnWiki". Also I would like to note that contents, form and logic of comments of some main deletionist users from RuWiki AfD and these 3 AfD in EnWiki are absoltely same. Although these comments  were written by different users (R_Physics, Proscience and his wife, Dmitry Rozhkov, Andrew Ryzhkov (RedAndr) and so on). So I tried to response you using my very bad english and hope that you understand the main sense of my comments. Below I presented one of my old comments from the last AfD. Barstaw (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is interesting compare the comments of above mentioned users with the comments some russian users which they did in the first AfD discussion of my article (see please Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations). Also these english comments absolutely same with the logic and contents of comments (in russian) which were in Russian.Wiki.(see please [] and []). Here I would like to present just one and  short quotation from their correspondence " ... Осталось теперь на англвики добить. --RedAndr 15:26, 24 января 2008 (UTC)" main contents of which can be from russian to english translated approximately as " ... our next task  is kill (delete) english version of the article" that is my article Myrzakulov equations.  Also both of these two russian users  actively participated in the previous AfD discussions directly and in the second AfD discussion anonymously and using (by) associated users. Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Barstaw (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Barstaw/Ngn, now that you have a user account you should always log in when you make a comment, especially on a page where you have commented before as user Barstaw. If you don't do this, you must at least sign with you username, not with "Ngn". I know you don't want to hide that you are the same person, but still people could get confused. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. You are right. Barstaw (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "Proscience" and his wife "Antignom"?

 * Anybody can help me to identify Proscience and his wife Antignom?  If you can help me please e-mail me. How I can recover their physical address using their IP address? Barstaw (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that would not be considered appropriate discussion here. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some reasons for that ... Barstaw (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Proscience. "I thought it obvious for anybody that I do not consider her contribution valuable enough to be improved upon. Moreover, I (and many others) cannot be expected to drop everything and start working with somebody we disagree with, on a subject that we think should be handled in a very different way." . Really speaking in some sense I agree with in this point.  But you can improve the articles Landau-Lishitz equation. This article were created not me. Just I did some small contributions. Also you can improve the article  Ishimori equation although it was created by me. But it not about Myrzakulov equations. Also you and your wife can improve  my english. Barstaw (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation on "Russian conspiracy"
What's being discussed here as accusations of a russian conspiracy comes from two things. The fact that Ngn seems to be saying that there are users coming from Ru.wiki to delete it (not shown to be the case, though I don't know about the first nomination), and particularly the final comment to the 2nd AFD which frames the situation as an analogy about world wars. I came away from reading that thinking that it was intended to imply that the ru.wiki users had had some nationalist reason for wanting the article deleted - and it almost certainly _does_ mean (and Ngn/Barstaw is continuing to say) that the person nominating this for deletion is acting on behalf of those Ru.wiki users. --Random832 (contribs) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is neither here nor there. We've got an AfD now, and it doesn't matter where it came from.  We're looking at the article based on its merits, not based on who did or didn't nominate it for AfD.  I suggest we just stay away from this topic, as it doesn't matter to the AfD and doesn't appear very constructive overall.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we just stop discussing this? As far as I can tell this topic was only introduced on this page by Barstaw when she quoted R physicist. There seems to be no allegation of a Russian conspiracy here, and consequently there should be no need to discuss it further. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To nominator Random832, In your case I not think so. Also I not think that there was "some nationalist reason for wanting the article deleted" in RuWiki and in these EnWiki. Just I wrote about two russian users. Barstaw (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is - if there's no suspected nationalism, then there's no reason those RuWiki users shouldn't have the same voice as everyone else, so no reason to bring it up at all. --Random832 (contribs) 00:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assertion about sequence is, unfortunately, chronologically incorrect. Note your own comment above, in Author's language difficulties, dated --Hans Adler (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC), in which you refer to Barstaw's preceding catalog of  "Russian" involvement.  Barstaw's later posting at this site, which first contained the words "Russian conspiracy",  was copied by her from a  private message that had been left at the talk page of user:The Rationalist. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC) (alias: "R Physicist"), and posted here by her. That original message was subsequent to her "Russian" postings, and had not been intended for posting here. Moreover, it had no other purpose than to assist Barstaw in assuaging her concerns about "Russian" involvement, by explaining how to verify the facts about anonymous IP posting's geographical locations. However, from the subsequent development, this effort to help which, if read carefully, is clearly well-intended,  nevertheless was ill-conceived, since it was totally misinterpreted, and viewed instead, by Barstaw, as an attack.  24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")
 * I agree. I told Random832 that I thought he/she was beating a dead horse, and Barstaw misunderstood and thought I was merrily participating in the fun. Yet another failure of communication. Perhaps I shouldn't post in the middle of the night. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I not maked or not did, how speak (Oh my english! Where are you my assistants Proscience and Antignom) any allegations about "Russian conspiracy". This term came to these both AfD debates   from "senior scientist" that is from R_Physicist. Barstaw (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Very Odd Deletion Discussions - Aren't They?
There seems to be quite a bit of knot tying complexity inherent in the above conversations. I just thought that I should ask a few questions to get to moral grips concerning whether the article Myrzakulov equations should stay/go (well, obviously). A test of whether the material is notable in any sense shouldn't merely be popularity (or how often the author is cited, or how often it occurs within journal papers, or whatever), but, rather, a general indication of the academic merit of those who have made the publications upon which the article's substance is founded. So, with that spirit in mind :

1) Where did this 'Myrzakulov' get their degree or technical training from? What are the details of this degree/training (ie: grade).

2) If self-trained (which I imagine could be the case), perhaps some other objective means of assessment/capability could be applied.

The above provides some 'background' information for the article. More information of use would be :

1) Is the article applicable in the sense that the theoretical model associated with the equations models reality in a useful way (if they are just specialised equations of an already generalised theory, then I suppose not).

Hopefully, some of these comments have not been made in haste (well, they have...).

ConcernedScientist (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have obviously not read the discussions here and in the two previous nominations before asking these questions. Answering them completely with 100% confidence would make a lot more work than it is worth. Most people have already made up their mind and !voted, and you are very unlikely to change the outcome of this debate.
 * The person after whom the equations are named is a Professor of physics in a former soviet republic and can easily be googled, and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that he is self-trained. The article was written (and defended against deletion) by someone else who, however, clearly had a conflict of interest. This person has now been blocked indefinitely by Jimbo Wales himself, after making (implausible) threats of violence. There seems to be general agreement among the experts who voted here that, even after all the work that has already been invested by others to save the article, it is completely useless because nobody is interested in reading about the equations and they are not generally known under this name anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I basically agree with Hans Adler. Second point: please always read the discussion of a preceding AfD, if there has been one. I expressly said then where Myrzakulov studied, that he is a Professor, and that he has American colleagues who visit him on exchange programmes (all of that could be googled, but on one of those three facts you needed the Cyrillic version of his name - but that was also provided in the last AfD). His status as a scientist is or was never in doubt, the status of his equations is. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)