User talk:Mdd/Archive 3

Relational order theories

Marcel, though I consider that the two topics can be related, and could go into an explanation of how, do not wish to be perceived as pushing. Good faring. Ordermaven (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Responce under User talk:Ordermaven#Relational order theories - 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Output budgeting

You know about this sort of thing more than, I could you take a look at the talk page for the article, which someone tried to speedy-delete,--and, inexpert though I may be, I find it really hard to believe WP doesnt have an article on PPBS. DGG (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the article and made some references. There seems little more I can do at the moment. As to no article about PPBS, there are a view thousand articles about systems, see List of systems but even that is just a beginning. -- Mdd (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kenneth_E_Boulding.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kenneth_E_Boulding.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the warning because that page already has a Fair use rationale -- Mdd (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Human Body Language as a Variable in Complex Studies of Populations

Mdd, I noticed that you made a lot of contributions to “Talk:Complexity.” Do know if human body language has ever been – or could be considered, the subject of a study in the complexity of populations? Specifically, I’m thinking of a study that involves defining biometrically measured changes in peoples’ body language psychologically and neurologically, and relating these changes to quantitative and categorical indicators of socioeconomic and political change – including indicators that model changes in the geographical distribution of body language types in populations, in which these psychological and neurological changes statistically occur. Even if you don’t think that a description of this type of study belongs in Wikipedia, please still tell me what you think about such a study at obdmf.freeforums.org/. Jasonbengiat (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

General guideline about what is suitable for Wikipedia are give in the Wikipedia:Notability page. Just a description of any study usually isn't a notable subject. A lot has to be written about such a subject to make it notable, the study generally has to be well established.

A sto your second question. I have seen that you also started the http://biodemometrics.com/home homepage. As far as I have seen it's not related to any of my specific knowledge. Relating it to complexity seems to me like a "wild guess" or in Holland we should call it an "open door". There is little more I can say about this, but I wish you all the best with your initiative. -- Mdd (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Systems Engineering's lead paragraph

I don't have the time to quibble over the sentence that you inserted before the INCOSE definition – however, if you would do a textual analysis (“tekstverklaring”) on this single sentence of 18 words, you would find at least three issues. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. I have answered on the talk:systems engineering. -- Mdd (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User page

Mdd: I have noticed your excellent contributions to various operations research articles. Would you be receptive to a suggestion for a minor change in the English on your user page? Lou Sander (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all suggestions about my English are more then welcome. -- Mdd (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kondratiev

I don't know why I thought Nikolai Kondratiev should be "Kondratieff", but I guess bad perception of a redirect. The current spelling is correct, of course. Nixdorf (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'll post a notice about them at the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Stephen Wolfram.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Stephen Wolfram.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Systems art

On 25 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Systems art, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Connectionism revert

In the article on Connectionism, I had changed the "See also" section to a two-column list because it takes too much vertical screen space on any reasonable monitor size and resolution. When content takes up the space better, it looks better and is more easily comprehended at a glance, as it requires less scrolling. Why did you change it back to one column? -Pgan002 (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking first. I agree a two-column list can be helpfull, efficient, effective. But I am used to the "Multicol" columns. I didn't know the new lay out you presented. Maybe I am just old-fashion!? Good luck with your work. -- Mdd (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Repetition compulsion

I wasn't the one who put the list back, it was 76.180.79.125, who is not me. I agree with your moving it, since I didn't know that long lists like that were not allowed. Sorry about the confusion. Legitimus (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

McEvilley

Hi. Best wishes to you. Most of the material in the article is not mine and was added subsequently. When I first saw the article by accident there was not much to see. The name was spelled wrong and the English was terrible. It looked as though some juvenile afficionado had done it for a lark. Well, said I to myself, he did better than that. He had or has something of an intellect. As far as I know he was the first to propose that the conundrums of Buddhist metaphysics at least partially derive from the Greek pre-socratics. Whether the connections he cites amount to proof, well, that is a different matter. The notion was not well received but that has nothing to do with it. From time to time I do read some Mcevilley. Although I am not a modern art oriented person I am a classics and philosophy oriented person.

For the personal side, well, I believe I have read that material in some of the many things written by him or about him. You know, I just can't remember where at the moment. If I remember I will certainly inform you first of all. Now, what I wrote there's the truth. But, it isn't the verified and authenticated truth. Sorry. Even the best of us slip up. I don't feel bad about it because at the time it was better than what anyone else was saying, which was mainly illiterate.

But now, I see the article has been expanded along lines I would have wished. So, I do not feel a great need that this questioned material should be there. When in doubt, take it out. Alternatively, do an Internet search on McEvilley and you will find so much material that you too will not be able to remember it all. He has a certain public. I'm reasonably sure that among the many blurbs you will find some personal stuff that will do unless you encounter wiki-critics that are going to argue he sprang from the head of Zeus or was the offspring of the river meander.

Maybe you should email Tom and ask him for some sources. If you were there with him in the Catskills (if that is where he is) he'd probably invite you for a cup of coffee with a friend.

For myself I tackle mainly Wikipedia articles that are in trouble because some fanatic has hold of them or someone insists he can decipher Linear A by writing on his thumbnail. I have a method and a goal but I'm not revealing it, and I do have an identity, but I'm not making it generally known. I'm pleased to see the McEvilley article developing so well and conclude it no longer needs my attentions.

Ciao. PS I was away for a few days.Dave (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PPS Hang in there Mdd. Just because you act in good faith does not lay a requirement on anyone else to do so in the same way. Your doing that, which is what I would do, is a personal decision non-binding on your opponent. In the entire world in which these people move I have never seen a hint of honor or abiding by spoken or unspoken contracts. Yengeeze don't keep any treaties. I have seen some persistent mercy but that was a personal decision on the part of individuals in a world where the norm was to delight (and I mean delight) in taking down your opponent by any available means. How else are the reins of power to be expropriated? If you say afterward, as did Governor Wallace (a great man in my view, worthy in the end of his namesake), I don't want the reins of power now that I know what it entails, well, that is a personal decision according to a personal ethic developed the hard way by stubborn men. On Wikipedia you find a host of stubborn men, but no more so than in society at large. Wikipedia is no better than its editors despite its ideals. I agree you are not dealing with candidness. I'm not entirely candid either. All I am suggesting is that there might be compelling reasons for lack of candor, with which you would agree if you knew. Sometimes candor is not affordable. Maybe you should not take the article so seriously. I just happen to be in a position to know your opponent is totally transparent and laughable but in the constrained world of Wikipedia rules that isn't going to help you much. I suggest, if you take out the marked stuff, maybe he will lay off with the disinformation. Best wishes. Don't feel bad, just go on.Dave (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bon matin. You aren't looking at a real person there but only at a persona assumed to accomplish a purpose, such as the removal of all personal information about MacEvilley. Whether you want to bother to conduct a struggle against a straw man is up to you. The shadow people can lead you a merry chase - here, no there, no somewhere else. Boo! No, over here! I spent much of my life doing that and it wasn't so merry. Now I ask myself, was it worth it? I don't know. We never get any answers, we never resolve anything, we never see people again. People are God's sidewalk art. So I don't know what to tell you, except that on Wikipedia things do eventually get resolved. If he beats you he has the next person to contend with, and so on, until the public is satisfied something is said about Macevilley. That was the fate he chose when he decided to become well-known. One has to accept fame gracefully. Good luck, I got things to do now.Dave (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about the Bio systems AFD, so I've asked User:Neil for a comment - I don't know him very well, but I believe he's active on AFD a lot. I've also unlinked mainspace references to the wikiproject page - it's a valid resource for the wikiproject, but it kinda avoids the whole point of an AFD if its still linked as a mainspace article. I'll be cross-posting this on related pages touched by the discussion to see what kind of input comes up. WLU (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ok. I noticed. I would have been nice to discuss those things first before deleting. -- Mdd (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists#List_of_Systems_Biology_Research_Groups. The AFD is one legitimate place to discuss though, and one that will touch on many aspects of the legitimacy of the list (though on a basic policy level, not systems-specific perspective). We'll see, sorry if it creates extra work, but would you mind keeping discussion centralized there? I'm quickly losing track of the places that require cross-posting. Thanks, WLU (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the 'funny' thing is, I got the list mixed up with another one - I'd meant to AFD the microfluidics list. If it moves back to mainspace by the way, it should probably be lower-case systems biology research groups per MOS:CAPS. WLU (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The only funny thing I see is that this stirrs things up and will eventually improve the existing listings. -- Mdd (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, if WP:List says it's ok then I won't have any objection. If the consensus is the list is not appropriate for mainspace, I have no problem with it staying in systems project. I've always found AFDs great for giving me the kick in the butt to create the page/source the statement/expand the section. The only thing I really want is more clarity about external lists. WLU (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Hi Mdd, I'm trying to sort out the list issues. One comment I will make, and Colin echoes it here, is that the AFD should have been allowed to run its course rather than being pre-emptively closed. The page move would have been a very valid way of having the page avoid deletion and I'm pretty sure would have been supported. Also, I would have looked less like a tool : ) (the current AFD makes it look like I nominated a redirect for deletion with a completely erroneous deletion rational) The move short-circuits a major venue for debate on wikipedia and incidentally the main reason why I nominated the page in the first place (as a test case). I'm satisfied with how you dealt with my initial objections and think the move is a good solution. Could I ask though, as a favour could you find an admin to delete the redirect? It'll make it a bit more 'official' and less like I'm targetting the page. WLU (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It was never my intention to discredit you. It was just that I did have some of these discussions before in the past year, and I thought I had little to add. The move was just a precaution. There is to much invested in those lists to just get them deleted. As to your reqest, I think this is allready moving. -- Mdd (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why the smiley is there - I realize you're not trying to make me look bad, it's a whole mess of interlocking circumstances that make me look bad : ) The redirect has indeed been deleted so I'm satisfied the matter is settled. And sorry about the page discussions in the past - was the page ever actually AFD-ed? I just reviewed the single section on the list's talk page but there didn't appear to be an old tag saying it had been nominated for AFD in the past. WLU (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas McEvilley

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Thomas McEvilley. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --saxsux (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, why should I use the sandbox after I have made a 10.000 edits to the Englsh Wikipedia and another 10.000 to the Dutch Wikipedia. Haved you notice I putt that text and image there in the first place. I have been arguing about 20 hours in week about this article.

There is a reason why i made those moves and I can explain. But first a question. Why did you feel the urge to give me a warning in the first place? -- Mdd (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mdd. Apologies - I was just flicking through recent changes and saw you'd removed a large amount of that section. I didn't realise how active you were on that article and its talk page, and your edit was intended to be beneficial. My bad. --saxsux (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Please revert your own revision. And I noticed that I did give a reason: Sculpture in the Age of Doubt: Removed frase that had little to do with the book itselve. This might not be clear for outsiders, but for insiders it certainly will. -- Mdd (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The problems are all minor. He's referred to as "Tom" instead of Thomas; there are minor grammatical and spelling errors; article titles are italicized, rather than put into quotation marks: that sort of thing. And I concur: many articles here are in need of similar touch-ups. We all do what we can, where we can. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Systems psychology

This is very thorough, Mdd; you have put in a lot of work and the result is impressive. Regarding the family systems therapy portion, there are a few more names that might be mentioned like Virginia Satir, Salvador Minuchin, Jay Haley, Don Jackson, John Bell, Paul Watzlawick, Lyman Wynne, and Mara Selvini Palazzoli. Jamespkeim (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: References and notes

Hello, Mdd. You have new messages at Gary King's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Scientific classification

Mijn idee was om eerst alle links naar Scientific classification bij te werken, maar daarvoor moet eerst de "What links here" op orde zijn. Helaas is de verandering in de taxobox nog steeds niet bijgewerkt; dat duurt nou wel heel lang, vind ik. Meestal is dat binnen een paar dagen wel geregeld. Ik zal de disambiguation pagina nu wel verplaatsen; maar dan moeten later de overblijvende links nog wel veranderd worden. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, dan laat ik 'm nog even staan. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Er zijn ongeveer 90.000 taxoboxen op wikipedia (uit mijn hoofd: ongeveer 60.000 dieren, 25.000 planten, en nog wat andere organismen). Die linken allemaal naar de nieuwe lokatie, Biological classification. De "What links here" van Scientific classification laat nog steeds duizenden links zien, maar dit zijn vooral taxoboxen waarvan nog neit in de database is verwerkt dat ze veranderd zijn. Ik denk dat er misschien nog maar 100 links naar Scientific classification zijn, maar het precieze aantal weten we pas als de database op orde is. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving User Pages

I'm not a big fan of archiving. Feel free to copy your conversations to your talk page if you want to keep them.--Cubic Hour (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a way of working in Wikipedia which suits me right. I have no problems with you archiving your comments the usual way. -- Mdd (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of different ways of working in Wikipedia. I like mine, you like yours. No need to throw around empty threats about blocks you can't enforce. I just don't like keeping my discussion page. Otherwise though, I finished converting List of microfluidics research groups to the template you provided. Thanks for that.--Cubic Hour (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that you are trying to experiende how fare you can go. I will just follow the procedure. I have given you a last warning. The next step will be to ask for a blockade. We will see. -- Mdd (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We've just got differences in our style preferences. It's not vandalism, just how I like to organize my inbox. Check out WP:DRC and WP:BLANKING for information on the wikipedia policies on this. If you want to archive something somewhere, feel free to use your own user page.--Cubic Hour (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I keep that in mind. -- Mdd (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Hi Marcel,

I need your help on a copyright issue - Yu-Chi Ho recently gave me permission (via email) to use his photo on his Wikipedia page. I'm not familiar with the these "copyright tags" and I keep getting these messages on my talk page. Can you tell me what I should do?

Thanks!

Jiuguang —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiuguang Wang (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind...I think I got it. The bot messages finally stopped. Jiuguang Wang (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Drawings of Unassessed System Dimensions

Hi and thanks for your question - essentially, I believe dimensions could be assigned to the unassigned systems. By dimensions I mean somewhat arbitrary groupings and classifications. Some posts of similar subjects are on Accuracy&Aesthetics blog at:

• OntoDimensions
• Single Point of Failure
• Trace Continuous Threads

Would you like to work on or talk about this more? Deborah Deborah MacPherson, 20 June 2008 21:24 (UTC)

I personally think, the work on the Accuracy&Aesthetics website is certainly interesting, because I my own work is also in the field of visualization of concepts. It seems like a lot of original research somewhere between art and science.

Now I noticed the Talking About Spirals article is refering the the Category:Unassessed Systems articles. I don't understand how this could be a category of related work to Context Driven Topologies. That category is part of the assessment of the WikiProject Systems. This is a special organization within Wikipedia to improve Wikipedia article about systems.

So I think there must be a misunderstanding here. Wikipedia is not offering an article about unassessed systems. So how can you a drawings of something that isn't there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Derek Hitchins - System of Systems

Hi Mdd,

I am impressed by the amount of very good stuff you have contributed in the systems domain which I have only recently discovered within wikipedia. I came looking for what was said about INCOSE, Systems Engineering and System Dynamics and found myself exploring more and more pages that are in my own area of interest.

The paragraphs on system of systems within Derek Hitchins' page do not, I think, convey the fact that Derek (in the paper referenced) does not advocate the use of the the term - on the contrary, he sees it as a tautology in that every system can be a system-of-systems and vice-versa. He also points out in the paper that there are dangers in adopting the terminology simply because of the inherent reductionist tendency when you term anything as comprising other things - thus the term could be deemed to be contrary to a holistic or systems approach.

You have correctly quoted him, its just that I feel that - taken out of context - this could be seen as Derek advocating the use of the term system of systems.

Hope that is clear!

--GRMat158 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed that part from the article see also Talk:Derek Hitchins. -- Mdd (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I added a Signature in my preferences: -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hugo O. Engelmann

Grant Park contacted me but Hugo O. Engelmann still needs some wikification -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:C West Churchman.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:C West Churchman.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting archives

Hi. Your tagging of articles like Talk:Computronium[1] is removing archive boxes. Please review your tagging to insure nothing is being removed. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hint of the day: Instead of typing out "Wiki project banner shell", just type "WPBS". Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I deliberately removed that particulair archive box because I thought it was a talkheader. My mistake. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of systems science organisations

Hi,

Shouldn't your blanking of List of systems science organisations be either a redirect or a move? An admin could overwrite other versions in case a move is not possible. WLU (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I blanked the page because this page (I created) can be deleted. I moved the content to List of systems science organizations, and as far as I can see I removed all links to that article. So what is the problem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl made it a redirect and that is ok with me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, my thinking was along the same lines as moonriddengirl - a redirect from an ENGVAR is pretty standard from what I know. WLU (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Neural network related articles in WikiProject Systems

Hi Marcel - I was reading artificial neural network and I noticed that none of the neural network related articles belong in a WikiProject - do you think it is appropriate to add them to WikiProject Systems? They would fall into intelligent control, naturally, but a lot of the topics under neural networks isn't particularly control-related (like the mathematics based optimization articles). --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this question. I have copied this question and will it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems because I will relate this to my activities over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gerard de Zeeuw

More info under:

• http://ais.ximb.ac.in/ais/internet/FacDetails.asp?fid=XF119
• http://www.ejbrm.com/vol3/v3-i1/v3-i1-art3-brown.pdf

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, my bad

Man, I seriously don't know what I was thinking. I guess I wasn't. I'm really sorry about that. Thingg^⊕⊗ 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fathers of scientific fields

Hi Marcel - hope you are doing well. I just wanted to let you know about a recent article on the fathers of scientific fields (that came off of the People known as the father or mother of something), in which I added systems theory. I thought you might be interested in taking a look. Have a good day! --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have taken a look, and will take some action sone. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I added some of your contributions there to the {{systems}} template. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Pourdehnad.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pourdehnad.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeated these questions on User talk:Ddiddo -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dasavathaaram

The film's theme is based upon the chaos theory. Why do you insist on removing it? Universal Hero (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. See Talk:Chaos theory#Dasavathaaram -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're in danger of hitting 3RR, as this isn't exactly vandalism, merely spam. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. What are you trying to tell me here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should get the Chaos theory article semiprotected. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As I was one of the ones who reverted (I think I did, anyway), I can't do it myself, but I can request it at WP:RFPP. Meanwhile, please read WP:3RR. I don't think the additions are vandalism, just linkspam. I guess they figure that if Cloverfield can do it, so can they. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Request filed. (And the log shows I reverted twice, with comments, this week.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to International Journal of General Systems, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. You have provided no indication that the article has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Namespace vio

I have moved Mdd/Information visualization to User:Mdd/Information visualization. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Bertin

On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacques Bertin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Science science awards

Hi Marcel - I came across Category:Science science awards you created, and was wondering why it is named as such. Did you mean Category:System science awards?

Also, congratulations on the DYK item - I got my first one last week. It was very exciting.--Jiuguang (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. My mistake. Should it be

1. Category:System science awards
2. Category:Systems science awards
3. or Category:Systems sciences awards

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar problem with the List of systems sciences organizations. I guess I renamed the list three or four times. From "List of systems science organisations" to "List of systems science organizations" to "List of systems sciences organizations". I think it should be Category:Systems sciences awards. Do you agree...!? If you do, let me know. I will start that directory at once and will move every thing over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Systems sciences awards sounds great. Thanks! --Jiuguang (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Greeting

Why, thank you! I've technically been a member for a couple of years, though I've only made a few minor edits in that time. I did forget to sign a couple of talk-page comments but I quickly edited again to add them, so all should be in order.

Thanks again for the links & information.

Jacob (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Pritsker - Thank You

Thank you for you contribution to Alan Pritsker. I can see the edits were thoughtfully considered and the list of publications is very helpful. Hopefully we can get together someday and I will be happy to buy you a bier and discuss a bit of chaos theory with you. Your efforts are appreciated and you deserve to be recognized for them. Gohiking (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorization in the Psychophysical Paradox article

Hi,

you have left a message on my talk, saying that there is a policy to avoid categorizing stubs.

I fully agree, and in fact, this must have been a contribution of someone else.

BTW, how is it most convenient to reply ? Is it like I am doing here - add a section to your Talk Page, or is there a more convenient way?

Thanks,

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

or did you mean that if it is categorized as stubs - then there should be no other categorization ?

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, Marcel. First, I would like to ask whether you have seen my apology rearding my honest mistake in understanding how Categories work.

I would now like to add my article to a Category: "Unresolved Paradoxes in physics". Should I also add a Category: "Unresolved Paradoxes in Science", and a Category: "Unresolved Paradoxes" ?

Can you please answer a trivial previous question that I have asked about the ; symbol that you have placed at the beginning of a line, like that:

References

Does it simply turn the whole line into Bald style?

Also - can you please help me by providing a link to a page that lists all these special charactes, such as:

; : *

Can you please answer in my Talk-Page ?

Many thanks for your help and effort.

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Vandalism"

I think you clearly understand that the edits I made were not "test" edits in any sense of the word. I consider your use of official Wikipedia warnings as abuse of the Wikipedia system and harassment of me. Unfortunately, I am not an expert enough user to send you an official counter-warning, so I will simply ask that you please not try to invoke the power of Wikipedia policy to try and intimidate me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You really should address my point on the Computer Graphics talk page before making any further edits / reversions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Marcel

Thanks for your good ideas and input at Portal:Computer graphics. Maybe we can get some order (and quality) into these articles by raising the profile - I don't think I've seen a featured CG article yet. Dhatfield (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Feedback_by_Tuskin.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Feedback_by_Tuskin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why keep irrelevant comments on the Computer Graphics talk page?

These comments pertain to a discussion that essentially took place on a different page. Why do you feel the need to keep them on the Computer Graphics talk page? They only serve to confuse new editors --- especially the notice about the page being focused on academic computer graphics! This is exactly what you wanted to change, so why are you keeping it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to get rid of it again then. It just doesn't make sense why it should be there! I imagine you'll cite some minutia of Wikipedia policy to explain why those comments need to be kept. I wish you would just take a step back and think for yourself for a moment: why do we need to keep these old comments around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.198.118 (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Systemology?

Do you have an explanation for the fact (?) of "systemology" having only minimal acceptance in the English language, while in say Dutch "systeemkunde" appears to be quite normal? English doesn't seem capable of reaching beyond "systems theory," why? -- Iterator12n ^Talk 19:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, interesting question. I have a few thougths about this

• In Dutch the terms "systeemkunde" is not quite normal. A bit more accepted is "systeemleer", but the regular term most people know is "systeemtheorie". "Systeemkunde" and "systeemleer" are translations of the term systems engineering.
• Isn't English capable of reaching beyond "systems theory". What about systems science, systemics, systems thinking, systems philosophy...!?
• Also with the List of types of systems theory I more or less investigated the divergence in the "systems theory" concept. In English "systems theory" may seem like a regular term, in systems science it sometimes seems to me taht every scientist is working on his own systems theory.

Maybe these thoughts answer some of question? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They do, to a large degree. Still, terms like "systems philosophy" are composites, therefore (on my personal scale) to be frowned on, somewhat. I have to think about systemics, sounds natural, much more than systemology. Thanks. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 20:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Data visualization page

Hi Marcel! I looked at the Data visualization page and had some thoughts on new material, which I put in the talk page. I looked at the history and it looks you're past the main restructuring, so hopefully my edits won't get in the way... but if you'd rather I leave this article alone for a bit, let me know. I'm happy to discuss directions for this article on its talk page further... --Infografica (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work

		The Original Barnstar
		Computer graphics is the most improved article I've seen thus far. Just amazing. Dhatfield (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic effort

I am probably doing this wrong. But I wanted to say that you've made a fantastic effort Roger Harnden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerharnden (talk • contribs) 11:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you. Next time your can sign you post on talk pages with ~~~~, which will automatically shows your username and time and date. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical diagram

On 16 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mathematical diagram, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Theories

Category:Theories has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Béla H. Bánáthy.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Béla H. Bánáthy.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is replaced by the Image:Béla H. Bánáthy.jpg. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Transferring images to Commons

Hello Mdd,

I'm an admin at the German wikipedia. You've transferred several diagrams from there to Commons recently. I've looked over those transfers in order to delete the local file versions afterwards, and I've noticed that in many cases information pertaining to those images was not correctly transferred. You often attributed wrong licenses to them, labelling them as being as being released into the public domain e.g., when in fact they were licensed as GFDL. In one case, you attributed the image to another user. Please be more careful when transferring images to Commons. The Move-to-commons assistant might be helpful. Regards --Rosenzweig (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. I noticed you made some additions to the images I recently updated from the German Wikipedia to Commons. Now I question if your edits here are really needed. For a lot of images we are talking about here is the rule: "Diese Datei erreicht nicht die für einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz nötige Schöpfungshöhe". Now the German users sometimes claim GNU licence and sometimes they don't. See for example here, here and here. This doesn't make sense to me. Now I admit I have uploaded the images under {{PD-user-w|projectcode|projectname|username}}, but next time I can use the {{GFDL-user-w|projectcode|projectname|username}} some more.

I personnaly would like to refert most of the changes you made those last 18 to 20 description. I think the initial description is much more clear. For example this is more clear then with your edits here. For you it seems the most important that the image came from the German Wikipedia, and you express this three times: in the source -, date - and author - description. I personnaly think the most important thing is that Grubaer made it. With the edits you made, I think, that simple fact becomes rather unclear that Grubear made the image. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think at all that Gubaer's authorship is unclear. What is unclear about Author: Gubaer and Gubaer at the German language Wikipedia, the copyright holder of this work?

The most important thing is not "that the image came from the German Wikipedia", if the image were originally from the English or any other Wikipedia, then that would be the information given. The big problem with your uploads is that they lack information. You say the image comes from the German Wikipedia, that it was made by a certain user and uploaded on a certain date. You don't say that it had a different name originally, as was the case for several images - making it difficult to access the original file logs at the original Wikipedia.

One can of course dispute whether any of these files do have Schöpfungshöhe, coming to the conclusion that the correct license would be PD-ineligible. But please only change the license accordingly after you have transferred the original information correctly, and do not use license tags that are simply incorrect. This is not a question of using "the {{GFDL-user-w|projectcode|projectname|username}} some more", this is simply a question of transferring the correct information. What you were often doing was actually inventing licenses. You use a license tag giving the impression that the original uploader had released this file into the public domain, when in fact he has not!

The format used now in the desciption is the format one gets when using the Commonshelper bot. It is designed to give all the necessary information demanded by various licenses that can be used on Commons (GFDL, most prominently). It may be a bit repetitive, but it makes sure all the necessary information is there. Regards --Rosenzweig (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree I shouldn't change the giving licences, even if they make little sense. I will try to avoid it next time. I however don't agree the Commonshelper bot/and your presentation gives the right information. I think it is just confusing for any outsiders, who wants to just use the image. Now for me this is an administrative thing... and my priorities are elsewhere. And bye the way, I try not to give files a different name on purpose. I sometimes make mistakes. I am sorry. But I still think you are not improving the source/data/author descriptions you make. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the 'further reading' link you just added to Sleep. Fascinating stuff! --Hordaland (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That link is their since 2006, see here. I just made the link to Yaneer Bar-Yam, who I think is a fascinating scientist who deserves our attention. Now I am glad this draw your attention. Maybe you can add some things about your findings to the Yaneer Bar-Yam page. This would please me very much. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

balloon calculus

Hi, Marcel. I'm a novice round here, but very keen to publicise a diagramming idea for calculus. Please visit http://www.ballooncalculus.org. I'm waiting to hear back from a guy behind the calculus pages, to see if I might be allowed a link there, but perhaps you might be interested, as a diagrammer? I suppose my drawings are a species of Hasse diagram, though I'm not sure! Grateful for any comments. Perhaps I could even make an article, and submit it for linking to your mathematical diagrams page? In that case I should perhaps want to describe it more formally and show that it has some kinds of formal validity... I'm guessing. Anyway, grateful if you have the time to look. Thanks, Tom Royall Espressobongo (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I have taken a look, and I think Wikipedia is not the place to present this work or even add links to your original work. Wikipedia has the policy not to present original research, but only work, that is allready presented in scientific media and referenced by independent scientific sources. This means we are only talking about the existing science and not all new initiatieves. I am sorry. I wish you all the best with your work. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks for taking a look.Espressobongo (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Marcel

Actually, I was wondering what I could do for you guys. I'm into robotics and AI, but I'm also the coordinator for copyediting for 0.7; are there any articles in the 0.7 selection that already have good sourcing but need copyediting? (Feel free to reply here.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have copy edited most of the articles in the field of systems science myself recently, with the introduction of fields in the Wikiproject, see here. I guess I have an other 200 to 500 articles to go in the field of systems theory and systems engineering, but this is some thing I wnat to finish myself.

I do have some remarks about the 0.7 version and the selection made, see my comments here. There are some changes I would like in that selection, but I have made the time to look into this. I in fact was planning to let it pass. But maybe you can advice me what to do here?

I noticed you are a member of the Good Article WikiProject, and this also makes me wonder. I haven't seem to have the ability yet to lift articles from a B level to a good article status. Lanquage does is a problem here. It would be nice to exhange some ideas about this too. Take for example Herbert Simon. This is a subject I think has potential. Ok enough. Let me know, what you think. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marcel, I'll be happy to help with this stuff, I'll probably have time to get to it later today. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If I understand right, SelectionBot is saying correctly which articles are and which are not tagged by your Wikiproject. If you would like for Herbert Simon, for instance, to be listed in Wikiproject Systems, just edit the talk page and follow the format used by the other wikiprojects to add your wikiproject to the list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I tagged that article with a systems banner (I forgot). Thanks -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you like for me to start with Chaos theory, which gets the most monthly hits according to your first link above, or with Herbert Simon? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is for you to decide. I am just interested in what you are capable of. I wouldn't go straight to the top at once, if you know what I mean. If you want a testcase, you could also take the Debora Hammond article. I have try to nominate it as a good article, but didn't had the abilities to get this done. Are you for example capable of improving that article. If you do, I will contact Debora Hammond and ask here for some pictures. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not for me to say. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Impressive. Take Debora Hammond as a start an advice me what to do next to get a good article status. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That article isn't one of the WP:V0.7 articles, and the deadline is coming up quickly. We're trying to focus especially on the most-read articles; I'll start with Chaos theory. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had a ton of work dumped on my head (day job), so I will be a little slower than planned. Btw, one WP:SYSTEMS article gets 4,000,000 hits: Wiki. It's a delisted GA, so I'll probably tackle that one first. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. Notice that I did removed the Wiki article from the WikiProject Systems. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm really busy, I will be spending less time at Wikipedia, and I won't have time to get to most of this stuff. Sorry. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Software development conflict

I'm not concerned with how you want to define software engineering as long as you don't try to oversimplify software development and all it's related disciplines, some which have little to do with engineering. If you want to merge your template at the bottom of the page with the software development process as the title, we can delete the old template at the top of the page. I just refuse to accept your attempt to exclude software development from the template or try to treat it as equal to software engineering. You know that it is broader in scope. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. First read, discuss and if that doesn't work refert. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to experiment, use the WP:Sandbox. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you make no sense. I am just improving the articles.

I would ask you to comment on the talk pages instead of starting an editwar. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I already commented on the talk page. You could have used the WP:Sandbox to make your point. You're the one who started the edit war. And you only waited 3 hours to merge away a page that had been active for 7 years without buy-in from other users. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Making one remark on a talk page doesn't give you the right to start an edit war. I have explained myself on the talk pages of the two articles and so far you haven't even considered what I said. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, start acting like that instead of your blind referts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You've made it difficult for me to assume good faith. I've made several remarks on the talk pages and with every edit in the comments. I already stated why your edits were unacceptable. You have yet to dispute anything I've said with anything that resembles logic. And you have yet to get any buy-in for your megabytes of changes and removal of content that was well accepted as it was on wikipedia for years. It's you who's unwilling to discuss. I know exactly what you are doing. Your edits lack WP:NPOV and over-simplify a broad multidisciplinary subject to technology, making it difficult for the less technically skilled to feel qualified to even have an opinion on the subject. I know your type. I've worked with them. You are not fooling me. It simply your way of trying to monopolize the terminology and make the field of software development an exclusive club where software engineers have the final say if not the only say. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Software development. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -t BMW c- 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What a mess. Please return the 2 articles to their original states ASAP. Do not do further merging of any articles on Wikipedia without significant consensus. -t BMW c- 21:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I undid todays edits here (on 3 articles). -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on one of your edits

I've commented here on a problem you caused with an edit. Maybe you can help fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Chen

FYI, I commented on one of your edits at Talk:Peter Chen. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Singer & Boulding.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Singer & Boulding.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

IDEF1X

I believe the edits you undid should be restored. I agree some balancing of the text in the entries on IDEF and IDEF1X is called for. If I had know about the IDEF1X entry, I would have done it that way in the first place. But I believe the way to proceed to restore the edits to the IDEF1X entry, then revise the text in the IDEF entry. (The "edit conflict" where we were both editing the same page and the same time did not help. Sorry for the confusion.) Guanajuato (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanajuato (talk • contribs) 00:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise modelling

Hi Marcel. I appreciate the efforts you are making to improve this page. But there are still some problems with it, and I can't see how to get around these problems without doing a bit of original research. For example, I think it was you who added a link to Object-Oriented Modeling. Now I am aware of people who claim the relevance of OO modelling to enterprise modelling, but those claims are disputable and possibly even unverifiable. And if we included all the techniques for which people have made similar claims, we'd produce an extremely long list indeed. Meanwhile, the language that is possibly closest to being adopted as a standard for enterprise modelling isn't in there yet. (I guess I'd better add it myself.) --RichardVeryard (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Thanks for contacting. It is not just the Enterprise modelling article I have been working on lately but I wikified and extended over 50 articles lately in the field of software engineering and on a lot of articles I fould your name in the article history or on the talk page. I guess you are more of an expert in this whole field, so I appreciate your feed back. Now I will respond as much as possible on the separate talkpages, where you today also made some notes. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done bits and pieces here and there, but the task of sorting out the whole field is beyond my expertise or energy. I am also wary of making contributions that might seem to promote my own expertise in this area. One of the things I have tried to do is classification - when you look in some of the categories I have created, you can see how much overlap and confusion there is between similar articles. --RichardVeryard (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marcel, me again. I am impressed by your time and energy sorting out these pages. But I was puzzled by your "nominal set of views" in the article on View model. Is this your own original research, or does it come from somewhere? And what is nominal about this set? --RichardVeryard (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I responded to the original research claim of on the Talk:View model. I understand now there could be some confusion, so I will try to make soem adjustments to the article to clear this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the source of this set is now clear, thank you. But I'm still concerned about the dominance of this particular set in this article. As an international standard, RM-ODP is far more notable than a framework, cooked up by a couple of guys at NASA, whose only source is a paper in what appears to be an incomplete unpublished draft. --RichardVeryard (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, see Talk:View model. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marcel, yes I did know you were Dutch (hence the winking emoticon) - but I didn't think to check who had written the Dutch article on DEMO. Of course it was you, who else would it have been? So can we have that one in English please? Meanwhile, I'm currently writing an article on Service-Oriented Business Improvement for the CBDI Forum [2], and I'm planning to talk about DEMO and i* (as well as ArchiMate and a couple others). Do you have any experience of DEMO; if so can I ask you to look at my example and say if it makes sense to you? --RichardVeryard (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK now I understand, but no. I expanded the DEMO article, but I didn't started it, as I didn't start the Extended Enterprise Modeling Language article. I usually only start or expand article on more general subjects, see here, with a particular interest in historically important subjects, and I have wikify numerous articles around those subjects. I have no experience using DEMO but I did study some of it's 20 years of development. It seems to me Dietz has developed DEMO into an Enterprise Ontology. I think this book and some online articles explains quite well. I will consider translating the DEMO article. Good luck with your article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Copying

Mdd,

I was disturbed to see this edit, in which you directly copied two sentences from this source. As an experienced contributor, I'm sure you already know about plagiarism, and I'm just curious to know if you have been doing this at other articles as well. If you haven't, I will take it on good faith that you know what you're doing and I won't bother to go through your contributions; but if you know that you have been copying information like this, I hope you can at least agree not to do it any more, and to help with identifying past edits that contain plagiarism and cleaning them up.

Thank you, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Maybe you can explain. I guess you are talking about the following two sentences.

He succeeded Virgil R. Carter, former executive director of the Institute. During Carters tenure... , PMI experienced a 350 percent net growth in membership to 90,000-members and expanded its global component organizations in 120 countries. He also spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001.<ref>[http://www.asmenews.org/archives/backissues/may02/features/carter.html "ASME names new executive director]" in: ASME news May 2002.</ref>

Now I indeed used the source and added a reference. As far as I know there can only be a matter of plagiarism if one uses the source, but doesn't mention it. I used and mentioned the source. So what is the problem here? Coukld you explain? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, plagiarism can refer both to copying someone's ideas without attributing them properly, or to copying someone's words without attributing them properly. You properly attributed the ideas and information to the source, but not the wording; typically, when copying wording, it's customary to at least put it in quotations, and often also to introduce it with something like, "According to X..." Not putting it in quotations but citing it with an inline citation, as you did, implies that the wording is your own.

It can be confusing, but in general I think it's always best to err on the side of caution. You can take a look at WP:Plagiarism for more information; that page is still under construction and has not been adopted as policy yet, but it still has a lot of useful information about what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it. Since you clearly are not acting in bad faith, there's no reason to get administrators or anything involved; I just want to make sure you're aware of this plagiarism issue so that bigger problems don't come up in the future.

Thank you for your message and for being open-minded, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I always add my source. But I don't always use "According to X...". Not using this, doesn't make my work automatically make it Plagiarism. Or is it? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two ways to avoid plagiarism. One is to put copied material inside quotes, and use "according to X" or "X stated..." or things like that wherever possible. The other way is to always paraphrase (for example, instead of directly quoting the statistics about Carter's accomplishments, saying something like "During his time as president, Carter increased both the membership and the budget of the PMI." —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And in answer to your question...not using "according to" doesn't automatically make all your work plagiarism, so you don't have to worry about that... but if you copy language directly, and don't at least put it in quotes, then it might be considered plagiarism. Some things have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, but in general anything that's directly copied and not put in quotes is probably technically plagiarism. (Also, for the purposes of determining plagiarism, minor changes can still be plagiarism...for example, you correctly changed "During his tenure" to "During Carter's tenure" to better integrate the sentence into the article, but since that doesn't constitute a substantive change to the writing style then it would still count as plagiarism if it's not put in quotes and properly attributed. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no case of plagiarism here, and I don't mind taking this up with an administator, or even start a public debate about this. I could learn a thing or two. I used the exact two lines and added a source. Do you say this is plagiarism? I guess then we have a problem and we have to ask and administrator. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing about this particular text: It is probably better if I would add the "according to", because of the particular information. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I do say it was plagiarism, and if you like I can point you to a discussion of an almost identical situation (a user copying text word-for-word from a source and citing the source but not putting the text in quotes) where the outcome of the discussion was that it was plagiarism. The discussion was very sour and spanned numerous pages, but the bulk of it can be found here.

When I brought this up I had no intention to bring this to administrative attention or to pursue any action against you, because I know you were acting in good faith; I was merely trying to inform you about plagiarism. I still don't have any desire to have "a problem" with you, but if you choose to take this up with an administrator I will have no choice but to stand by my original assertion that this edit constituted plagiarism. I'm not trying to get you in trouble or anything; I'm just letting you know that, if a public discussion is started about this, I will call a spade a spade. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I find this discussion usefull, and as I said, I can learn a thing or two. Maybe I will take a look at the discussion you mentioned later. We are now only talking about two lines and I can easily rephrase the sentences with your help. I already explained on the talk page, why those two particular lines are important. And I even agreed it is better there to add "according to". I think we can finish this Balestrero copy-vio problem, by rephrasing the two sentences. I will give it a try, if you agree?

Now I write a lot, I use a lot of PD sources, but also a lot of Google book sources. If you find any other copy vio suggestion in my work, let me know. Or just remove it as you did. I am prepared to rewrite any text at any time. Now in the 4 years I have been writing on Wikipedia and Wikicommons I have quite some experience with copy vio aspects. And there is a lot to learn. And to talk about, but I will leave it with this. So can you check and maybe comment if I rephrase the Balestrero copy-vio problem? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your request for comment on this issue... since this is such a small issue, I was kind of hoping we could get it settled with just one or two outside opinions, rather than bringing a large community into it, since a large discussion like that will probably just drag it out much longer than is necessary for such a small disagreement (and a disagreement that is really more about writing style than about content). I won't remove the template or anything—whether or not to file a request like that is your decision—but I hope we can get the matter settled without causing too much of a ruckus. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are an expert in copyvio. I am an expert improving articles. I take the removal of information from an article very seriously. Starting a Wikipedia:Requests for comment seemed like a good idea, I have never done this before. I agree it is a small disagreement, but I am very serious about the work I do. I like to get this sorted out as soon as possible. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just like you, I also want to get this sorted out quickly; unfortunately, an RfC will probably just drag it out forever and bring in a bunch of people who will want to just make a fight over this, rather than people who actually care about improving the article. If you want to keep the RfC requested then I won't stop you, but my intuition is that it would be better for both of us if we kept this between us and a couple other editors.

As for being an expert...I don't consider myself an "expert" in copyvio or plagiarism, or anything wikipedia-related for that matter (I've only been here a few months), but, like you, I spend most of my time creating and improving articles as well ([3]). My desire to remove the couple of numbers in the article isn't about cleaning up copyvio (you and I solved that issue hours ago), but trying to improve the article by keeping it well-written and focused. You are trying to do the same thing, and we just have different ideas about what would be an improvement to the article. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Mdd, what prompted this? I thought were were being civil and just having a respectable disagreement. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have explained myself one more time on the talk page, and hope for a second opinion soon. The RfC didn't let to any respons yet. The next thing I am going to do, is to give more notice to this, in my opinion, "withholding information" conflict. I think it is a very bad thing if any authors is starting to make up his own rules about what exactly should be in an article, and what not.

It seems to me, that you don't have to agree with me. But you could accept that I find it important to bring extra layers to an article. Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me you are determined to dictate me what to add in that article or not. I am prepared to fight this attitude as long as it takes. But again maybe I am mistaken here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, you are mistaken. I am an experienced writer trying to improve the quality and style of the article, not someone trying to cover up information. But if you want to find other editors or administrators to judge this and to judge me, you are more than welcome. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in judging you, or the style of the article. It is a fact, you removed quantitive information from a reliable source. This is not my idea of improving quality. Now I have 1000 other things better to then quarreling about that one sentence in that article. I have added the whole section I rewrote to the Project Management Institute article, and that suites me as well. Once agian, I don't disapprove with your style of writing, as long as you don't loose the information in the rewritting process. It is just different.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I can relate to this discussion, having had it myself. I quoted from a text in the article body without using quotation marks and then put the relevant paragraph from the source in a note with explicit citation, making it quite clear that the paragraph was a quote. I was stunned when an investigative genius read the same sentence in the text and the note and in a flash of Sherlock Holmes brilliance he concluded that *gasp* the sentence was directly from the source text. The first note was accusatory and rude, then I was told "just to be safe" ...blah blah blah. Plagiarism, by definition, requires insufficient attribution. Cited words are cited. If someone quoted from my PhD and cited it properly I'd be flattered. If they paraphrased badly, I'd be irritated. I'm with you Marcel: the wikilawyering can be simply ridiculous. Dhatfield (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is a complicated matter, which has a lot of ins and outs. It is never that black and white. The whole idea of Plagiarism in Wikipedia is rather odd, because hardly any user claims to create an own original work. I expect to be corrected in Wikipedia if I make a mistake. I often on purpose don't use quotation marks in Wikipedia articles for multiple reasons, but I do use them in other work outside Wikipedia, where I do claim to create original work. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

John Zachman claims copyright on a figure you added at Zachman framework

Hello Mdd. I received an email from User:Phogg2, an editor who knows John Zachman personally, and he says that Zachman has not released the copyright on the new figure that you recently added at the head of Zachman framework. (It is Image:VA_Zachman_Framework.jpg). Though it was found on line in a VA powerpoint presentation, he says that the rights for that figure are *not* owned by the U. S. government. Please consider removing this from the article. I worked with Phogg2 previously trying to get some images cleared. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the image from the article for now. And will get back on this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked both the powerpoint presentation and the introduction of this presentation at va.gov, see here, and found no (direct) copyright notification. So I guess I followed the right procedures.

Now I replaced the image from the article, with an older less detailled version. I noticed you tagged the Wiki Commons version, and I will not opposed there. The image should be removed there soon.

I hope this will do. Let me know if there is some thing more I can do. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed there is a similair illustration of the Zachman Framework in a NASA presentation by a NASA employee, see here, which also bears no copyright sign.

Thanks for your quick action. Our copyright policy is of necessity somewhat reactive. When people don't say anything we may get away with keeping something there for a while, but if they speak up, we don't have much choice. It seems that Zachman is not pleased when people take his scheme and modify it, going on to claim that their modified version is still a Zachman framework. If he were to let the figure out under GFDL, it seems that others could create modified figures which in turn could be distributed without limit. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem with that image beeing removed, since I replaced it with an older version, which illustrates the article just as well. I keep wondering though. It is difficult for me to determine, because I am no expert in this field (yet), where the orginal work of Zachman ends and the new work by others start? There seems to be a lot of work based on this framework concept. Take for example the Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework. It seems to me this framework has redefined the Zachman framework principles in similair illustrations. But I know there is a thin line between derived work and new original work. I guess with the "VA Zachman Framework" it is more clear this is derived work...!? Is it just a new version of the Zachman Framework with a VA attached to it. It didn't seemed to me, but I guess I was mistaken. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose he could try to assert a trademark claim, though a small outfit might not want to pay the legal fees. I think that Wikipedia is fairly successful in staying out of trademark issues. Since you created Treasury Enterprise Architecture Framework, I assume you must know something about this area! EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know more then a little about this area. I have been creating and rewritting several articles in the field of Enterprise Architecture recently and before that in the field of software engineering etc. The idea of the Zachman framework has been developed into several Enterprise Architecture Frameworks. But there is no Zachman copyright any more, as far as I know. The copyright is on that one image "VA Zachman Framework", or actually could be. I think we are following the right procedure here, getting that image removed. Now I don't know what you mean with that "trademark claim". As far as I know there is none. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to reiterate John Zachman's concerns about any adpatation his diagram with his name attached to it. The only reason he has agreed to the one I posted in the article is because I used EXACTLY the same names of the rows and columns as his original work (Version 1). Note that Version 2 of the framework is quite different and there is no way he will grant permission to use it.

I strongly recommend that the modified version of the framework be removed. Phogg2 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the image for now. After I have further rewritten the article I will try to illustrate the article in an other way. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Marcel. John was very upset about the article in the state it was in about six months ago. The diagram is a particularly sensitive issue, and he wouldn't allow the use of his copyrighted one because he didn't trust how it would be used on a website outside of his control. You have made some excellent improvements to yhe article. Phogg2 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added an other illustration of the Zachman framework. Do you think this is acceptable to Zachman? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Marcel, no John wouldn't find it to be acceptable because the names of some the rows ar not the same as his work. To give you a bit more background, the first time I posted a graphic of the Zachman Framework, I used some of the terminology from version 2 of the Framework. John sent me an e-mail asking me to delete it and reminding me that the condition of the personal license that you get when you register to download the version 2 poster specifically does not grant the licensee permission to republish it in any way. He allowed me to retain the image that you see as long as I kept to the original version 1 names for the rows and columns.

John has been very concerned (to put it mildly) that most people still don't seem to really understand the logic of the Framework, especially the concepts behind primitive models. When they change the names of the rows and columns or, shudder, add new ones, it really shows that they don't understand it. A lot of tailored frameworks (e.g., US federal government)claim to be based on the Zachman Framework but if they don't include methodologies for building and reusing primitives, then they are not really Zachman-based. Hence John's reluctance to have anyone else but him publish official versions of his framework.

I recommend you remove the image. Phogg2 (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don´t know how to respons, and am trying to get some advice first. It seems important to me that this article is illustrated with an image that gives a good impression of the Zachman Framework, but has no copyright issues. It seems only logical that this image isn´t an exact copy of the original, other wise it would be a copyright violantion. This way it seems impossible to get this article illustrated. Exact copies have copyright issues and original illustrations have the esthetical and moral problems towards Zachman? Maybe a fair use (copy) image of the orginal be an option!? But I have been creating some other illustrations of the framework as well and maybe this can be an option.

On thing I don't understand. You explain: John's reluctance to have anyone else but him publish official versions of his framework... We are not publishing an official version of the framework and never pretended to do so. I though I explained quit well in the subscript of the current illustration. That is a representation of the framework... not the original, and certainly not the official version? It seems to me that a Wikipedia article could offer a representation of the framework. But this is someting I will check with the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions soon. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Marcel, I already inserted a simplified image of the Framework in the article, one that zachman agreed to. Why do you want to add another one, especially one that has a Row with the title "As built," which has never appeared in any of John Zachman's work?

I recommend again that you remove the image. Phogg2 (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Phogg2. I am just trying to improve the article, see futher Talk:Zachman framework. If you have any problem with that please respond over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Extra sources:

• July 20 2001 : http://www.va.gov/oirm/architecture/ea/strategy/ZachmanCoverLetterforVersion10-0.PDF
• Aug 2001: http://www.va.gov/oirm/architecture/EA/strategy/VAEAVersion-10-01.doc

GSRM

The GSRM is a public sector centric business reference model that addresses the top two rows of the Zachman Framework by drawing on those primatives to create composite objects and models that express the business. It includes an ontology and a controlled vocabulary. The models provide strategic context to, and the evidence of business properties to which IT can then align. The external pages that I pointed to are slightly dated and should be updated shortly. The GSRM is being used by municipalities, provinces and the Canadian federal government, and I believe some private sector organizations as well. As far as I know it very much is a reference model

I hope I am getting all this right - this is my first attempt at Wikipedia and I am still trying to figure things outNkemp2010 (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I guess you are refering to the "Governments of Canada Strategic Reference Model". So what about it? Do you have any particular question for me? Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The Governments of Canada Strategic Reference Model (GSRM) is a business reference model. You took my contribution to business reference models off the Wikipedea page, claiming that the GSRM is not a reference model. I suggest it is. In the book "Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis", citied on the "business reference Model" page, states , on page vii "Ovidiu Noran’s article on “Reference Models in Enterprise Architecture” asserts that “The reuse of EA [enterprise architecture] knowledge [involves] identifying commonalities in enterprise models (EMs) and grouping them accordingly. Their common features can then be abstracted into a partial enterprise model (PEM) or reference enterprise model.” The GSRM represents, exactly that "an abstracted reprentation of the common features of a public sector enterprise." Please restore my links Nkemp2010 (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand, you are talking about this edit you made to the business reference model. I removed that link not because the GSRM is not a reference model, but because of Wikipedia policies concerning external links: The business reference model article is created to explain about business reference models in general, and external links should support this goal. It is not the intention of this article to list all existing business reference models. Sorry.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks for the welcoming message. I have read many of your discussions on the Software Engineering page and let me say, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would definitely like to clean up the pages surrounding software engineering and any guidance you can give is very much appreciated. Lwoodyiii (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I welcome your initiative, and thank you for your support. I doubt whether you need much guidance. I am not an SE expert but I do have some ideas, how the SE representation in Wikipedia could be improved. Adding images (as you started) is one thing. An other is looking at similar Wikipedia articles with a good or featured quality, for example Electrical engineering, to learn how the representation can be improved. The featured EE article has a good balance, and you could compare this with the SE article. Now I can explain te differences, but I am interested in your impression here first..!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be welcome to hear your ideas. It seems that you are one of the few Wikipedians that has kept up with the SE page in the last while. I would certainly like to bring the SE page to good or featured status and would enjoy working with you on that. I too had looked at the EE featured article to gain insight.

I noticed how they didn't have an "Overview" section but went straight to "History", so that's what I did with the SE article. They had "Education" as the second section, but that is problematic for SE because we are not as established in academic circles. Many still see us as still a sub-field of CS!! So I moved Education down the ladder. Most of our sections need a lot of work, I tried to start on "History", but there's plenty more to do. We definitely need more citations. Well, you've inspired me to work on it some more, so off I go to do some work :) ! Lwoodyiii (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, very good. I am only (re)working SE articles for about six months now (lately mostly in the field of Enterprise Architecture). My idea about improving the SE article focusses on improving, what in the EE article is called "Tools and Work" and "Subdiscipline". The SE article shouldn't just list these subjects. It should explain more about it, and in the process link to all relevant related Wikipedia articles. I do think it is hard to make the SE article a featured one because the matter is also lacking good illustrations. One other thing. I initiated the SE template and had some discussion on the Template talk:Software Engineering about it. You could take a look. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I keep wondering which pages surrounding software engineering you intended to clean up...!?

Right now I'm just working on the SE page, but I'd like to start a "Software requirements]]" article too. I can't really believe it's not there already. Maybe we should revive the SE WikiProject? Just a thought. I think your template is awesome. It's unfortunate that other guy just wanted to argue with you. I totally agree about the subjects, but that's going to take a lot of work. I'm working on the "Profession" section right now. Lwoodyiii (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess at the moment the representation of Software requirements is told in the Requirements analysis which focusses on both systems engineering and software engineering. And there are other articles Requirement, Requirements management, System requirements... You could redirect the term Software requirements to one of these articles and improve the representation on that subject over there, or start a new article. The choice is yours.

My idea of improving the representation of Software Engineering is improving the existing articles, and making a better connection. I think there should be a kind of hierarchie in the wikipedia articles: Main (top) articles as Computer science, Software, Software engineering.. etc. make the introduction. A series of (middle) articles should bring some diversification, and a most of the (lower) specialized SE articles explaining all kinds of subjects in more details. I have been working on some of these (middle) articles. Most of these articles are listed in the SE template.

The discussion with that other guy indeed wasn't that productive. I wanted to replace the old software developement template with the new software engineering template, and also wanted to largely change and expand the software development article. He wanted to keep it all in place, which always happens sooner or latter. In a while we will also don't agree and have to compromis. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could use the outline for SE article to organize our thoughts/articles on SE? Or is there a better way? --Lwoodyiii (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is better to start with reliable sources as the SWEBOK to outline the article, and then check what Wikipedia has to offer. I think the listing of the ten subdisciplines of software engineering is a good start. The section could be expanded with add a short introduction of every subdiscipline just as in the EE article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)