Jump to content

User talk:Bilgeis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Bilgeis (talk | contribs) at 21:09, 27 August 2017 (→‎Nomination of Oil boom and bust cycles for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Bilgeis, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not.

There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial.

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

The article Rasizade's algorithm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability. There are no other occurrences of "Rasizade's algorithm" on the web, that I could find. I have a suspicion that algorithm is an imperfect translation of the original language of this paper; that's why I cannot find it.
This is a fine piece of writing, well referenced, and probably got its author an A. Nonetheless, it constitutes original research. Either that, or its plagiarized from its original author. In either case, that's disqualifying.
Most of the references are printed books. That's not disqualifying; I just don't have access. The others are all on the other side of a paywall though.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oil boom and bust cycles for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oil boom and bust cycles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil boom and bust cycles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* I have addressed the concerns expressed in the deletion request in several ways: 1) Renamed (moved) the article. The new title more accurately reflects the essence of the article; 2) It describes a fundamental economic model and is a compendium of all scholarly work published in the field of rentier states; 3) This is not and cannot be a research article, as a scholarly research looks absolutely different, but an encyclopedic summary of all scholarship done in this field by leading researchers. It is enough to take a look at similar Wikipedia articles in the field of economic models and compare with mine; 4) I have re-edited the article accordingly to comply with the new title; 5) If the nominator suspects me of plagiarism, he has to prove it with citations. = Bilgeis (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]