Jump to content

User talk:Ademmen

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://edges-grid.eu/web/edges/3, 2=http://edges-grid.eu/web/edges/6, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Abductive (reasoning) 06:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transitioning Applications to Ontologies

[edit]

My suggestion would be that you recreate any of the deleted material as a subpage of your talk page, like this:

and invite review of the resulting article by disinterested editors before reposting it in article space. If you want me to copy any deleted texts to your user space for further editing, let me know; I'd be happy to do that for you as well.

I cheerfully agree that there are many mathematical articles full of unhelpful and unintelligible text. I've proposed some of the worst examples for deletion myself: clarity to a general readership is important, and even technical articles can be given a lede that explains in plain English, in laymen's terms, what they're about. On the other hand, articles about mathematical theorems seldom pose conflict of interest issues. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reaction. But in fact I think Lie_groups are very important. People should be able to read about it in Wikipedia, but they should understand from the article that they need more training or mathematical background if they do not understand it. I am pretty sure you cannot explain the importance of Lie groups without some (well actually a lot of) mathematics. Also they use a number of English words which have a very precise meaning in the context of mathermatics. The Lie group article is good at identifing those words and providing links to pages with explanations.

It is exactly this common vocabulary that is used by many scientific and technology area's that is missing form articles like "Transitioning Applications to Ontologies". What I propose is to work on this for in a number of areas, such as the "knowledge management", "Grid computing". With work, I mean joint work between Wikipedia editors who do not know the subject and people who do know the subject.

Without a common vocabulary science and technology areas cannot progress and some of that vocabulary has to be used in public communication too. But, of course, as little as possible, and when there are good general applicable English words to replace some vocabulary specific ones, that should be done.

But, as said, that needs work.

One other issue is "notability" in Wikipedia vocabulary. Europan projects call this "impact". (So already here you need a vocabulary mapping.) European projects have (must have) impact, so must be notable in Wikipedia terms. Of course, this must become clear in the Wikipedia articles about the projects. But until now most projects did, in good faith, describe in Wikipedia articles what they thought should be described, looking at Wikipedia project pages that already existed for years.

I am sure most of the project pages can be rewritten to meet the Wikipedia criteria. But what is even more important is that a lot of Wikipedia pages related to the technologies and science that the projects use are wrong or contain outdated information. These could be updated by people who become enthousisatic about Wikipedia because they see that Wikipedia editors actually help them with the things they are most interested in.

The current policy of project article bashing and removing articles within 7 days (during the Holiday period) is counter productive: it creates angry people (a lot of them). And angry people do not help Wikipedia.

I think "Transitioning Applications to Ontologies" should not have been deleted: there was clearly no consensus about deletion and there was still a discussion going on. Deletion was against Wikipedia rules. Same holds for the other articles.

Restoring the article (with comments the content should be improved) would help creating an atmosphere in which Wikipedia can be improved. Hope you see my point: discuss first, you can always delete later. Ademmen (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I nominated those articles, I did not make the final decision to delete them. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the next step if you wish to contest the closing administrator's decision. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think this discussion we are having, clearly shows we were not finished discussing and the administrator just closed the discussion a bit too early. If you ask the admin to reopen the discussion and let it come to a consensus end, the admin will probably listen. It is in the admin's power to do so. And it is also adviced in the procedure to first ask the admin.

Would you be so kind to ask the admin to reopen the discussion? I from my side look forward to a fruitfull continuation of the discussion.

Ademmen (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science

[edit]

The article Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ephemeral project. No independent sources that are actually about this project, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Crusio (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science" did not meet the requirements for speedy deletion. I told this on July 29 to Athaenara, but the article has not been restored yet. I also objected to Crusio about the deletion. Please restore the article. Thanks in advance. Ademmen (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but I cannot find in your edit history when or where you contacted Athaenara, so I don't know why your request was not heeded (just posting a notice here is unlikely to be seen by anybody). As for the PROD having been non-procedural because of a previous deletion discussion, I usually check such things in an article's edit history (and the admin deleting the article usually double checks), but I may have goofed. As I am not an admin, I cannot see any deleted article histories, so it's too late to check. What you should do is post your question on Athaenara's talk page and ask for the article to be restored, which undoubtedly will be done if the deletion was indeed against procedure. If it was correct, though, you can ask to have the article userfied into your user space. That will give you time to work on it and to add references that show its notability. I have to say, though, that if the article is restored to WP's namespace without addition of significant sources showing sufficient notability, that I will take the article to AfD. At that discussion you can then tell the whole world how much I have been damaging you and my employer (so that you can stop pestering me with emails about this matter). As far as I am concerned, this discussion is closed. --Crusio (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did send a direct message to User Athaenara:Athaenara about it. The article was discussed two years ago in depth. So it should not have been deleted now using this procedure. Hence again my request to restore it. I would also appreciate if Crusio does insinuate I send "pestering" e-mails: I did not do that. So please remove that insinuation. Ademmen (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ad, you've send me multiple messages, accusing me of damaging your project, my own employer, etc. and you kept doing that despite my repeated remarks that I did not want to discuss things over email but clearly in the open here on WP. That's "pestering" in my book. --Crusio (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: this is your talk page, so feel free to remove any comments you don't like. And if you want to communicate with Athaenara (e.g., to request restoration of the article), you will have to post on that editor's talk page, as it is inlikely that Athaenara follows this talk page. --Crusio (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Crusio. I thought Wikipedia had no room for personal attacks. So may I again, kindly request you to remove the offending text? Ademmen (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science 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/Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ademmen&oldid=1087701197"