User talk:APH

List of publications in biology

This is up for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology - and is being confused with List of scientific journals in biology. --Bduke 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in law

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of publications in law, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in law. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --WJBscribe 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) WJBscribe 03:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

There has been a lot going on with the Science Pearls articles over the last year - 3 goes at AfD with no consensus and the change of title to add "important" after one of the AfDs (since reverted for the Philosophy one). I have tried to get people to tighten the criteria but with little result, except for chemistry (my own subject). Many articles are a mess. Let me know if I can do anything to bring you up to speed. --Bduke 11:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm afraid that I'm not back to activity yet. I have being too busy outside of wikipedia and I will probably stay busy for a while.

I just added these categories since they were missing for too long and I thought that it is about time I'll add them.

I'm sorry to hear about the AfD's. Please notify me using email next time something like that happens, ok?

I saw the discussions on entries on the chemistry list. I cannot judge the entries since I lack the proper knowledge but the discussions are impressive.

Keep the good job done, I hope to return soon.

Bye,

APH 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but you do not have e-mail enabled. Please enable it. --Bduke 11:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure that setting the email address is enough. The email is enabled now. Thanks, APH 09:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What's with computer science? DGG 23:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing special with computer science besides my own preferences.

Historically I started with the computer science list since I have knowledge in this area and not too much in others.

When I noticed how well the computer science list develops I thought that list on others topics is a good idea too.

I created a stubs for the lists (e.g, Einstien should be in the physics list, etc). :::Afterwards, the people that really know something about these topics came and developed the lists.

Since then when I work on the project I usually start from computer science and move to the rest. I'll try to create the categories for other topics soon. Feel, free to add such categories too. APH 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The word 'Important'

Hi, there will be a problem appearing before lone in the philosophy area now that publications need to be 'important' to be in the that category. In the other sciences there is a greater degree of agreement on things. Philosophy is full of contention. People will start deleting those they don't like and claiming they aren't "important" enough. There is a WP guideline somewhere, I don't remember where, that warns against using words like this in titles because they bring about edit wars and can't be resolved by attaining sources (the words are too subjective). There was a List of Major Philosophers and "major" had the same effect - finally the list was deleted. I wanted you to know why you should revert the 'important' - please remember that 'notable' already is policy. Steve 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APH, not sure which "important" Steve is talking about. The word was added to the titles of all these list articles after it was strongly suggested in the 2nd nomination of the Biology list to AfD for deletion. I added it to all of them. Much more recently it has been removed from the philosophy list. Maybe Steve is talking about the category. --Bduke 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the category I refer to. I really wish we could have lists and categories with words like 'major' or 'important' in Philosophy because I think they are useful. But there are a significant number of people that go on 'exclusionary' campaigns. And there are people that insist on trying to censor a POV by deleting all references to it while hiding behind the subjective nature of the title ("Sorry, but I had to delete that because it wasn't really important enough.") I do some editing in the psychology area and there is much more professional attitude there - less contention and what feels like a higher level of honesty and less of a hidden agenda at work. I imagine that the 'harder' the science, the more that is the case. Philosophy (sigh) feels different. If there were a more effective mechanism for reining in irresponible editors this might not be an issue - but that isn't something I know how to address. Best Wishes, Steve 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm willing to accept almost any title. Since it seems that the word "important" might cause some problems, I think that we should try to discuss the options in order to remove this difficulty. APH 08:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let discuss the name here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science_pearls#A_title_for_the_list_and_categories. APH 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Important publication in mathematics. It covers the others too. The proposal is to rename to "Category:Important publications in mathematics", but a couple of comments say that it should be renamed to "Category:Mathematics publications" as "important" is against policy. --Bduke 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important publications in game theory

You recently categorized the article on the excellent book Winning Ways under this heading. Shouldn't it be combinatorial game theory instead? (See game theory). Leon math 01:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leon math,

Unfortunately, I don't have a significant knowledge in game theory. I'm also not familiar with the book. I added the book to the category in a "technical" manner - just because it was classified under the game theory section in the list of important publications in mathematics. If you think that the categorization should be different, please change it. Since combinatorial game theory is a sub field of game theory, we can create such a new sub category and add the book to it.

What do you think of the other entries in the list?

APH 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Important publication in game theory

It should be "Category:Important publications in game theory", notice the plural in "publications". Same for all other categories you created. It should be quite a lot of work on your part to go back and fix all that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used "publication" since each of the members of the category is a single publication. However, there was a discussion in which it was decided to rename to "publications". Should the rename be done manually everywhere? Isn't there any mechanism like the "rediredct"? APH 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mechanism, sorry. To say "Important publication in calculus" is grammatically incorrect, even if there is only one. I'd strongly suggest you visit those pages and fix things. Once you are done, I can delete the current incorrect categories. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And note that "Important publication in Information theory" should be "Important publications in information theory" (small "i" in "information", in addition to the plural in "publications". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your remarks. Thank you.

I don't have to much time currently but I'll add the category rename to my tasks list.

APH 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to bug you again, but those categories would need indeed fixing. The (complete, I hope) list is available at User:Mathbot/New math categories. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oleg, I agree that we should rename the catgories. Can we use the bot for that? APH 07:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody needs to write a script for that. In my experience, for a small dataset it takes much less time to actually do things by hand than write a program and debug it. For example, to rename Category:Important publication in elementry algebra all you need to do is visit that category, visit the only article in there, and add an "s" at the end of "publication" in the category name. If that category had a few hundred articles, we could do it with a bot, but since it has only one article, it is faster to do it by hand. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, hold on with renaming. We need to first see if having these categories is a good idea to start with (I am not so sure). Tonight (U.S. time) I will nominate them for deletion/renaming, and see what people say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 28. Let's see what people say. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended by David Patterson

Hi APH! I'm just curious, how is David Patterson doing these recommendations? Is this private communication to you, or is are they public records somewhere? Thanks :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were in private communication but now they are on the list ;-) . I thought that many of the people that can make a very valuable contribution to the science pearls project are not aware of it. I started contacting people whose publications appear on the list already and Turing awards winners and asked them for comments on the list.

It worked like magic. I got many valuable recommendations from many of them. Some of them agreed that I'll use their name. You can see it in the history page, near the relevant entry. Other than that, the project and the content of the list received many compliments.

Besides, discussing the project with some of them was real fun…

APH 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty awesome, APH. I'm glad to hear the project was received so warmly. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was by far beyond my expectations. I might try to extend this method to other lists too. Unfortunately, in most of the other areas I don't have a proper background. APH 08:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications in philosophy

...is now at User:APH/List of publications in philosophy. Standard cautions against reusing it in article space apply. Splash - tk 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I would like to use it as an internal page of the Science pearls project to guide our work in the area. Is it OK? APH 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be fine - glad you have some re-use to make of it. Splash - tk 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science pearls project

Please look at the talk page and give your views on a proposal to make that Project a Task Force of a new Project on Academic Journals. --Bduke 04:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of important publications in statistics

I have nominated List of important publications in statistics, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in statistics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —G716 <^T·_C> 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of important publications in biology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of important publications in biology 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/List of important publications in biology 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of important publications in biology

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of important publications in biology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Crusio (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of important publications in chemistry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of important publications in chemistry 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/List of important publications in chemistry 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. St Anselm (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/List of publications in philosophy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/List of publications in philosophy. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/List of publications in philosophy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bibliography of psychology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bibliography of psychology 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/Bibliography of psychology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of important publications in economics

The article List of important publications in economics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDATABASE

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of important publications in geology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of important publications in geology 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/List of important publications in geology (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of important publications in computer science for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of important publications in computer science, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]