User talk:J8079s

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

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, J8079s, and

welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions
. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rotary direct lift devices

Article Wizard
.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of New age Sabians

The article New age Sabians has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:OR

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 {{

dated prod}} 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 {{

dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Move of
Jābir ibn Hayyān

Many thanks for your support of my requested move of

Jābir ibn Hayyān. The move has now happened and I've done a bit of patching up of links and some of the content of the Jābir ibn Hayyān article. I'll not be able to do much more to it (or to the pseudo-Geber
article) for a week or so, but I'll give it at least a decent wash and rinse when I can.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences over the use of {{
vn
}}

I've noticed you've been adding {{

vn
}} to a lot of articles (absolutely correctly). Quite often this is where someone in particular has taken material from a source and added a priority claim; that is, the article only says that so-and-so did such-and-such but the wikipedia article adds the unfounded claim that they were the first to do so.

I have just been removing this sort of unwarranted extrapolation, mostly by simply deleting the priority claim. Do you think it is better to add {{

vn
}} to these articles instead? I've paused removing such claims for the moment, in case what you are doing is a better way of dealing with this.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J8079s. You have new messages at Syncategoremata's talk page.
Message added 17:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Invitation to discussion

Hello, you are invited to take part in the following discussion on this topic. The discussion is about general ways to improve Wikipedia in terms of verfifiability of contents. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of sources

Hi. Check out

here and here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


RFC discussion of User:Jagged 85

A

request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. -- Syncategoremata (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry for the delay but I've been meaning to thank you for signing the closing summary to this RfC/U. I'm glad that it is now behind us and I hope we never have to go through something like that again.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have some concerns about your recent edit to the Sharia article

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank You

Hi,

Thank you for finding Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries. Sorry I dinged you the other day, I was totally in reactive mode. You helped me make my first "big" edit. I remember what you told me: be bold. Must have been a few months ago. Seems like a hundred years ago to me now.

Regards,

talk) 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

al-Khazini and gravity

I noticed you just tagged for verification the claims about

gravitational potential energy
). What it does not bother to mention is that Aristotle also thought that the weight of a body varies depending on its distance from the centre of the Earth and that it was a commonplace of Hellenistic and later Greek philosophy: did the weight vary with distance? did it increase? did it decrease? does an object have any weight in its natural place? Of course, the cited article doesn't bother to mention this (and reads as if they aren't even aware of the past history of the question) but I think the claim should be either removed or thoroughly contextualised. There are some other problems with that particular source chapter (which I can't remember off the top of my head) and it's on my list to investigate. It's just not quite at the top of that list, yet.
And, I'm glad to be able to say: welcome back.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banu Musa

Hello. Yes, I think I´m going to fast. In an effort to revert the work of Jagged85 I started to delete all these supposed inventions. But I think you´re right. I´ll put them again saying that they were descriptions of earlier mechanical devices already known since antiquity. All the best--Knight1993 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Arabic, etc.

Hi,

I spoke too strongly. There are a few uses of the hyphenated terms you mention, but (checking Google scholar) academic usage overwhelming favors the non-hyphenated forms:

  • "greco-islamic science": Results 1 - 8 of 8
  • "greco-arabic science": Results 1 - 10 of about 45
  • "arabic science": Results 1 - 10 of about 2,000
  • "islamic science": Results 1 - 10 of about 3,490

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there are some good sources that use the term and they'd slipped my mind (a senior moment). Nonetheless, it is a minority term and I'm a bit hypersensitive to what David Pingree called Hellenophilia in the history of science. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict at
Jābir ibn Hayyān

My apologies for getting into an edit conflict with you at

Jābir ibn Hayyān
. For some reason I didn't notice that you had only just made your previous edit: I'll make sure to leave more time to elapse in future before editing.
My attention was caught by the {{
Vn}} tag you had added, which happened to be about an article I had been reading earlier this week. It's not a very good source for that claim and probably the claim should just be deleted or just moved to a new historical section in the Equivalent (chemistry)
article, as it is so vague.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't wait for me. I am really slow. I think we need an outline and a to do list.J8079s (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged cleanup

I noticed your recent editing on an article I watch. Excellent work! However, I would like to suggest that you try to put a link to, say, the RFC talk page in at least one of your edit summaries when cleaning an article. Perhaps append "see [[WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85]]" to your "failed verification" summary, so it would read "failed verification, see WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85". That might help when editors look at the article history in a week, or in six months: they will see the background to this unusual case. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will doJ8079s (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. After a bit more thought, I have put a proposal at WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Simple link for edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding this edit to

Lens (optics): can you explain or give me a link to somewhere where the specific problem with this reference or Jagged's claims is discussed? My concern is that Alhazen is important enough that he probably needs to be mentioned, but I don't have enough information to construct a replacement for the text you deleted. In any event, your edit introduced a problem: Alhazen and his book are mentioned again further down in the section. Since you deleted the introduction of this material, the subsequent mention of them is unclear.--Srleffler (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The deletion of unsourced claims seems appropriate to me; I've made editorial changes to clarify the mentions of Alhazen and his book of optics. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steve I think we need a outline on whats wrong with "Alhazen" and the "book of Optics". The edit in question here is typical "Jagged", that is a good source misrepresented, and an original theory.J8079s (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on top of this, having only scanned the RFC comments and not the evidence, so I will simply point out this revert, and say that I quickly did a

WP:CHECKUSER and I am pretty confident that it is just a random revert by an anon. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Please see the summary I have put at WT:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I noticed your recent edits (good!), but you used braces ({{...}}) in your edit summary instead of square brackets ([[...]]). Also, there is now a better shortcut to use. An edit summary should include "see [[WP:Jagged 85 cleanup]]" (copy the text that you see between the quotes from this talk page). If you look at the history of this talk page you will see how it looks because I included it in my edit summary. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the help J8079s (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science in the Middle Ages

Thank you. I did mention on the talk page that it was Steve's work to give him credit but I was unaware there was a policy. your summary would have been good too. again thanks for the help. J8079s (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI ANI re Islamic metaphysicsHi, your name has not come up yet, but in case it does, I wanted you to be aware. thanks Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at
talk) 05:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The admins helped me see the article history. Are there any others I need to account for? Thanks -
talk) 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Invitation to comment on RFC regarding the stubbing (deletion) of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbComYou are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—