I am one of five women in a group who have chosen the article Ecological Systems Theory for a required class. The article was then approved by our professor. I will have to talk to him and my group mates about making the changes/moving our article to the Bioecological Model prior to doing so. Ccolemag7 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MDD. I've been arguing with various people about Checkland and soft systems, and they have appealed to Wikipedia to support their opinion, that there is such a thing as a "soft system". I can't find this concept in Checkland's original book, which simply talks about systems, soft/hard problems, and soft/hard methodologies for tackling these problems, but I accept he may have changed his position later. You are one of the editors of this page, so I wondered what you thought about this. Do you have a source for the "soft system" concept? Best wishes, (RichardVeryard (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you Mdd for your edits and review comments, as well as the tutorial material you left on my talk page. I am sharing them with the rest of the working group. We will not rush to make changes. A few other pairs of eyes will come in and have opinions. We are meeting (over the net) next time on December 10th 2012, and we will do changes at that time. Til then the sand box where we "build up" is Remco de Boer's one, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcdeboer/SA. Cheers. PhilippeKruchten 15:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kruchten (talk • contribs)

I think are mistaken in your views on the application of the "primary sources" and "too technical" banners. I have undone your changes on the Executable UML page, and have opened both topics up for discussion on the page.Lwriemen (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the unintended change. I'll leave the article as is until further discussion.Lwriemen (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if we work together we can solve (most of) the problems I detected, but this could take some time. Please be patient. -- Mdd (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've found answers in the Teahouse supporting my viewpoints on the application of "primary sources" and "too technical". Lwriemen (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying what was going on. I misunderstood — I thought that you were saying that the original rewrite was material from the obituary, so I didn't bother checking the wikitext against the obituary. I'll now go back and look at the page history. You correctly understand my rationale, since the emailed permission permits neither derivative works nor reuse by non-Wikipedia purposes (for comparison, images with this kind of permission are subject to F3 speedy deletion), and you're correct that a satisfactory permissions email will be sufficient. Two things: (1) If you've not already sent that email, you should read Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. (2) Please remember that obituaries, like many other pieces of text, are often unsuitable for Wikipedia, simply because they're not written in an encyclopedic style. This might be different (I've not yet read it, so I could easily be wrong), but I'd just advise you to be sure that the obituary text would work as part of an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored everything except for the last four edits: the one in which you added the entire obituary, and three edits by other people to fix typos. I'm going to be re-doing the typo fixing myself. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome; I'm painfully aware of making this kind of error and am glad to get it resolved. Just please remember to forward the email to OTRS, permissions-enwikimedia.org. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mdd, I just created the article Dragon1. I immediately got a reaction that it looks like an advertisement. But in fact the page only states texts that originate from neutral sources. What to do? - Mark Paauwe (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, indeed an Advert "article message templates" is added to that article, and more tags could/should be added like COI, Notability, Orphan, Primary sources. This means there are (at least) five types of problems with the article you just created here. The most important is Wikipedia:Notability. More specific, are there enough reliable third-party sources on this topic to justify a Wikipedia article? -- Mdd (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Paauwe (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Yes: the Open Group is the most notibly 3rd party resource you can image to justify an article, second is the ISO-architecture.org source, third is the book about architecture frameworks in the netherlands. All these three neutral and independent source say Dragon1 is an open architecture framework. Take a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Architecture_Framework. I have more neutral source than this one. (mark@paauwe.info) Hoe kan ik dan duidelijk maken dat dit betrouwbare onafhankelijke bronnen zijn?[reply]

Mark, those tags are Wikipedia tools for quality-control, and should not be removed without consent. The bottleneck here is, that the topic lacks "independent sources that provide in-depth information about the content". A good example is Schekkerman (2003, p.139-144) on Integrated Architecture Framework. If your work starts getting such representation, then a Wikipedia article is justifiable. -- Mdd (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Paauwe (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Hello Mdd, I got a call today from people in england, surinam, netherlands and the usa working on government-projects with Dragon1 who saw the new template and were very much surprised as I am. They told me they are going to add references to their dragon1-based-projects in answer to the template. So please give them time. Is that okay?[reply]

If thing don't improve it can eventually turn into a WP:PROD and WP:AFD. Both you and Sianvanes seem to have a WP:COI. So please read WP:AFC and WP:COIU and remember: If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unforgettableid, you added a COI tag to the Francis Heylighen article. Could you explain which person you are referring to as having a COI? -- Mdd (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I have now added an answer to the talk page, in order to answer your question. Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework 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/FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework 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 template from the top of the article. Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Stavros (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC) When I use our local Mediawiki, I check the Watch this page box right before the Save Page button at the bottom of the screen. Whenever the page is chsnged, I get an email notice. On Wikipedia, I do the same thing and I don't seem to get any notifications. When you wrote on my Talk Page, I got a notice when I logged into Wikipedia. Is there something that I need to do get notifications or do I just have to keep making the rounds of the pages I'm interested in. I noticed there was a lot of very good discussions which I think you were eluding to on my talk page that I never responded to because I was unaware of the conversations. Any help you can provide me would be appreciated.[reply]

Hi Nick, we have a Wikipedia:Help desk for all these kind of questions. -- Mdd (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going out of your way to assist an editor who wanted to add an article to a portal. You were very involved in making sure it turned out right and in turn you showed the Teahouse guest a great deal of generosity and guidance. Thanks for doing that!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added the lines: "The concept isn't new. Special-purpose programming languages and all kinds of modeling/specification languages have always existed in the computer age. But the term has become more popular due to the rise of domain-specific modeling" to Domain-specific language. While this is something you would find in an academic paper, it's not really appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Thought I’d let you know and give you a chance to reword, before I went in and changed things. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edward, I recently just added a white line, see here; and the lines you refer to where already there, when I made my first edit to the article Oct 26, 2008, see here. So don't worry about me, just go ahead and rewrite whatever you like. -- Mdd (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) -- Mdd (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the references in the Umple article, there is no reason for it to be linked to the Executable UML article. They are unrelated technologies, outside of the use of UML. The thesis paper supports this pont of view in it's discussion of Executable UML. Lwriemen (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lwriemen, sorry for the confusion. I noticed here you disagree with Timothy C. Lethbridge, and I tried to offer a compromis. Why not contact Timothy directly on his talk page, and make your point? -- Mdd (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to Umple and Executable UML: Beside Timothy C. Lethbridge (at dbnl), for example also Omar Bahy Badreddin (at dbnl) in the 2010 article "Umple: a Model-Oriented Programming Language" and Jean Bézivin (at dbnl) in this 2012 presentation describe those two subjects in the same context. That seems enough to justify linking the both of them. -- Mdd (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean's presentation was a nice read, but his comparison was to any executable model done in UML, not to Executable UML. I have never seen any in-depth analysis of Executable UML by Jean. I couldn't access the specific paper by Omar, but his thesis paper refers heavily to the Executable UML Foundation, which means fUML. fUML is not Executable UML. Lethbridge and Badreddin are not third-party sources. For them, Wikipedia edits regarding Umple could fall under the heading of self-promotion. I've seen many instances of linking unrelated UML technologies to the Executable UML article, that were only for the purposes of promotion. This is why I deleted the link. If there was an actual justification for the link, I would have expected some credit given to Shlaer/Mellor/Balcer/Executable UML/etc. in the Umple article or thesis papers. Without this evidence or a reasonable linkage, I can only assume promotion. As far as contacting Lethbridge, I would expect him to contact me if he disputes my removal of the linkage. I was quite surprised that you restored it. Adding an Executable UML linkage to the Umple article isn't a compromise, because it totally ignores my point of view. If an actual justification for the linkage exists, I would be perfectly happy to see the justification added to both articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwriemen (talk • contribs) 01:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badreddin's 2010 article Umple: a Model-Oriented Programming Language states:

Executable textual modeling tools support automated code generation. For example, Ragel [12] supports a number of high-level languages but is targeted towards text parsing and input validation. Ruby on Rails recently added built-in support for state machines. The state Machine Compiler (SMC) [2] is targeted towards the specification of event driven systems. Microsoft is also developing a textual specification language, AsmL [6], based on state machine concepts. Those approaches do not incorporate class diagram abstractions and do not support development of complete applications. Executable UML [9] supports a subset of UML textually but misses key features of UML and does not integrate with programming languages.

This indicates that Umple, Ragel, Ruby on Rails, AsmL, Executable UML are close related. In such a situation it seems appropriate to make cross references in the related Wikipedia articles. -- Mdd (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo Diversey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to AC motor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• f=false Evolving Technology and Market Structure: Studies in Schumpeterian Economics], page 138]</ref><ref>Victor Giurgiutiu, Sergey Edward , Micromechatronics: Modeling, Analysis, and Design

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of bands from the Netherlands may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[[Babe (Dutch band)|Babe]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Trompenaars' model of national culture differences, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://awatchmansview.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/universalism-vs-particularism-what-is-more-important-rules-or-relationships/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the documentation to {{citation}}. This template supports an editor-link field that you should use instead. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jules Theeuwes, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.res.org.uk/view/art1jan13Obituaries.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see Talk:Jules Theeuwes. -- Mdd (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kees van Hee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Informatics

Middelheim Open Air Sculpture Museum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phillip King

Nina Baanders-Kessler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Makkum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theo Bemelmans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Controller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

William W. Simmons (physicist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to TRW and TWR

William W. Simmons (executive) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Executive

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jean-Baptiste Waldner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• from Manufacturing Resource. Planning Computer Integrated Manufacturing and Enterprise Architecture]], to nanoelectronics and nanocomputers.
• ( {{fr}} [http://www.waldner-consulting.com/jbw.html Jean-Baptiste Waldner] at waldner-consulting.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Van Beirendonck may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Walter Van Beirendonck]] (born 1957, Belgian fashion designer

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Masaru Ibuka may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Award from the [[Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies]]; 1986. [Eduard Rhein Ring of Honor]], German [[Eduard Rhein Foundation]]; 1989. Designated Person of Cultural Merits by [[Ministry of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hein Schreuder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to DSM

O’Callaghan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John O'Callaghan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wallace Clark (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wally Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

have not had a chance to look at the diffs but it sounds like I didn't catch all of the effects of a problem I was, yes, having with my mobile browser. The input does not seem to like the touchscreen and repeatedly and unexpectedly scrolls up or down the page. Don't suppose you know how to fix that? I had a good look in the phone's settings without success. Anyway, sounds like maybe, between the frustration and the random typos, I should wait till I have access to an actual computer. Those pages suck(ed) pretty badly, though. Anyway, sorry bout that. No, it's not deliberate. I knew it was happening but thought I had repaired all of the instances of it :) Elinruby (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for now to allow improvement. Only the first sentence of the text is referenced. The rest of his biography needs proper sources, whether in English or Japanese. I have particular problems with spammy unsourced claims presented as fact. the most important American plants... has assisted more than 200 foreign companies in Japan... Kaizen Institute currently operates in more than 22 countries... needs referencing or removing. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin C. Dittman 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/Kevin C. Dittman 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. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been cleaning up some old computing and computer science articles. Looking for a different "Bob Glass" I ran across Robert L. Glass which it appears you created back in 2008. (Amusingly this one has a link from 1982 NASCAR Budweiser Late Model Sportsman Series which unless this person had a double life, was somebody else - maybe a disambig page opportunity?) The lead included "currently serving as a visiting professor at Griffith University...". Of course, it might have been "currently" in 2008, but not sure he is still there. The editor emeritus page lists his address as Bloomington, Indiana, which would be one long commute! Could not find any source that mentions Griffith, although the 1999 ACM citation (which I added) somewhat implies he was in Australia around 1999. His personal "about" page also went dead about 2010, so wonder if he retired or worse. You probably might not remember specifics, but just wanted to let you know these old articles can stick around. This Bob Glass is clearly notable, but could use some more sourcing and updating. Of course now days we prefer to avoid dated language, e.g. say "in 2008 he became a visiting profressor at ..."<ref>{{Cite blah}}</ref> and there are many more cases that could be cleaned up this way. Any help appreciated, thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have redirected that first link, and will try to look into the Robert L. Glass some more. You are quite right that the lead has to be corrected, but I will try to find some more (of the original) sources first. -- Mdd (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mdd, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 12:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel, I wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I value your contributions to the Enterprise Architecture page in English Wikipedia. You have maintained a high level of integrity and maintained the standards of Wikipedia.

I have been asked by the president of the Federation of EA Professional Organizations to consider making changes based on the publication of the white paper "Perspectives on Enterprise Architecture." The paper, published in this month's Architecture and Governance Magazine and republished on numerous other sites, was ratified and approved by all 17 member organizations of the Federation, including the IEEE-CS, INCOSE, the Business Architecture Society, the Business Architecture Guild, the Canadian Information Processing Society, the Australian Computer Society, and many others. It is the most notable paper to date describing the field of Enterprise Architecture.

I wanted to forewarn you of this change, and to ask to for your assistance as I take on this challenge. Your command of the forms and format of Wikipedia exceeds my own and your understanding of Enterprise Architecture is excellent, a rare combination. As I set out to make a few changes based on that white paper, I'd like your assistance in making sure that I keep to the proper forms and don't overstep.

Also, I just wanted to let you know that a particular business architect named Sourabh Hajela has written his own (rather odd) definition of Enterprise Architecture on a blog site called CIOIndex.com. He then promptly proceeded to insert his definition into the Enterprise Architecture page on English Wikipedia. Two other editors have removed the definition only to have Mr. Hajela add it back in both times. I removed his definition again tonight. If he decides to add it back, I may need your assistance in preventing an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, I will try to be of some assistance. -- Mdd (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lou Rosenfeld may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• a [[user experience]] publishing house. He was also co-founder of the User Experience Network] (UXnet)<ref>[http://uxnet.org User Experience Network] (UXnet)</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to BiZZdesign may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref>Adrian Campbell (2009) ''[http://iea.wikidot.com/bizzdesign-architect BiZZdesign Architect]] at iea.wikidot.com, 30 April 2009</ref><ref>[[Terry Halpin]], ‎Selmin Nurcan, ‎[[John Krogstie]] (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Trident13. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Tim Ambler because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Specifically, an edit summary of "Some rearrangement(s)" does not cover removing fact tags. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. In the edit the addition of the birthday was just constructive, the fact templates were removed because there is no lack of references in the article, and the edit summary was just a standard phrase. But I will take another look. -- Mdd (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact-tags have been replaced by references. -- Mdd (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for initiation of Bernd J. Kröger article. I will add some more Literature references during next days. Bkroeger (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George L. Vose may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref name = "GLV 1873"> George L. Vose. ''Manual for Railroad Engineers and Engineering Students]'' (1873). p. v.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should not be copied intirely, neither to the article, nor to the talk page. It's awaste of time, effort and space. The article should contain the pertinent info from the sources, and links to the sources are sufficient for anybody to read them at their original location. Kraxler (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should not be copied entirely... to the article...?? Aren't there tons of articles, which started with lemma's from the Encyclopædia Britannica 1923, Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography or other PD sources? As to the contributions to the talkpage: Sources are not simply copy/pasted, but also reconstructed, linked and commented. These texts don't fit Wikiquote or Wikisource, but they can be helpful in improving the articles... but I will further keep this in mind. Yet your idea about the ideal (short) article, there are other people, who specifically oppose that kind of stubs. The advantage of importing content is obviously, that you can make a selection and add wiki links. -- Mdd (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The import of other encyclopedic articles from public domain sources like old Britannica or Appleton etc. is different, since these are already condensed. It doesn't make sense to copy a whole newspaper obituary to Wikipedia when only the death date and place, and perhaps a few other things, are relevant. Besides, the tone and style of the newspaper writing is usually unencyclopedic, so the relevant parts need to be wikified. Please feel free to add as much relevant information to any short article as you deem appropriate. (In this case, when I first created this article there was barely any other info available anywhere, so it had to be rather short.) Kraxler (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Cooke Bourne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• progress of steam navigation from authentic documents.'' with were lithographed by Cheffins.<ref>[Bennet Woodcroft. ''[https://archive.org/details/cu31924030903052 A sketch of the origin and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henry Corbet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Victorian 'high farming' of the 1850s and 1860s."<ref name="NG 1983"> Goddard, Nicholas. "[http://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/31n2a4.pdf The Development and Influence of Agricultural

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for brightening up Mr Fitzherbert! Great additions Victuallers (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. -- Mdd (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Neville Moray page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MDD,

You were very helpful to me when you created the page for Dr. Brian Cameron. Since I know him personally, I technically have a conflict of interest (albeit a minor one, but still relevant according to WP:COI).

I'm aware that the page was nominated for deletion in mid February, and deleted about a week later. I'm only an occasional user of Wikipedia, so I didn't see any notifications of that until after the deed was done, so I was not able to participate in the discussion.

I got hold of scottywong, who approved the deletion of the page and he told me that I'm free to create another page given that the vote was lightly attended and that better references are available. I wrote a new page and submitted it for addition.

See Draft:Brian_H._Cameron

However, in subsequent discussions, I've been told by other editors that the request to create a new page will be quickly denied because of the already existing 'request for deletion' decision. I was told to go through the process of challenging the deletion instead. I reached out to tarc to ask if he would be willing to reconsider his prior objection based on better references and a page that does a better job of explaining his notability. So far, he appears to be maintaining his position.

Would you look at the page authored above and tell me if you think it meets better standards, and can you give me advice: should I be pursuing a challenge to the deletion or should I continue to pursue an addition? Nickmalik (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, as a start I rearranged your draft version into the standard format, restoring some of the data from the initial article (still online at deletionpedia.org). Now the bottleneck in the AfD has been the lack of data from reliable source about Cameron's work (present or incorporated (?)). I think you made some significant improvements in this direction, but it is up to the community to decide here. As to you course of action, you could just try both.

In the AfD, I already made some suggestions about how to further improve this article, which I didn't follow up (yet). I think Cameron came into prominence after 2005 with his ideas on enterprise systems education, and enterprise architecture education. And this could be further incorporated into the article. -- Mdd (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcel, After your re-configuration of the article, I got feedback from some administrators that complained (on the talk page) that the article now reads too much like a resume. With respect to how "standard" the format it, (and I admit that many articles follow that structure), the articles that have been nominated to be examples of good articles usually have a much simpler style, similar to where the article started. I will attempt to bring the LEDE back into alignment with the recommendations in WP:LEDE and will restructure the "work" section to flow more like an article and less like a resume. Nickmalik (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take a random article from the The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911), see example here:

CAULAINCOURT, ARMAND AUGUSTIN LOUIS, MARQUIS DE (1773-1827), French general and diplomatist, was born of a noble family. He early entered the army, did not emigrate in the revolution, but was deprived of his grade as captain in 1793 and served in the ranks. In 1795, through the protection of L. Hoche, he became captain again, was colonel in the Army of the Rhine in 1799-1800, and after the peace of Luneville (1801) was sent to St Petersburg to negotiate an understanding between Russia and France. On his return he was named aide-de-camp of the First Consul. He was employed to seize some agents of the English government in Baden in 1804, which led to the accusation that he was concerned in the arrest of the due d'Enghien, an accusation against which he never ceased to protest. After the establishment of the empire he received various honours and the title of duke of Vicenza (1808). Napoleon sent him in 1807 as ambassador to St Petersburg, where Caulaincourt tried to maintain the alliance of Tilsit, and although Napoleon's ambition made the task a difficult one, Caulaincourt succeeded in it for some years...

Now this is just one example. My point is, that a significant part of every encyclopedic biographical article is the resume-part: He was born in a noble family... he entered the army... he was deprived of his rank, and later became...... etc, etc.

Now back to the Brian Cameron article, If you look at the resume he is give himself online (see here), that is a mile long. The extract the Wikipedia article is given is checked with other reliable sources, and I have the habit of trying to keep it as simple as possible. I see it as the base, that can be further extended sooner of later. -- Mdd (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcel, if you look at today's featured articles in Wikipedia, you will see the article for this fellow: Frank Berryman. The LEDE on that article goes into details about all elements that are differentiating about him. The LEDE is not a single sentence. This is what I'm getting at. I'm thinking that you are saying the same thing, but I'm not sure. I've tweaked the page. Does this make sense? -- Nickmalik (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a new message in wikiquote:nl:Overleg gebruiker:Mdd#2014-04 login help. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have been logged in here (again), and have fixed the problem yourself. -- Mdd (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about https://en.wikiquote.org/, not https://en.wikipedia.org/. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. As fas as I can see you never made any contributions to Wikiquote, see here, and you username is not blocked. It could be your IP address, but since there are no checkusers at Wikiquote, nobody can confirm this. You might want to ask a steward at Meta here. -- Mdd (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before asking a steward, i made some further research, and found wikiquote:en:MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. The 2 last lines seem to match my issue ("No usernames, longer than 29 characters. .*.{30,} <newaccountonly>", 534809). Could you help me by (temporary) change the block ? Since my username is 30 char long, replacing "30" by "31" for one day should be suffient. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User:Ningauble is more into this kind of details, and might want to help you out. -- Mdd (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a discussion is taking place at Talk:Karen Spärck Jones that you might be able to help with. It seems that back in 2008 a "whoopsie" happened with categories, but it is a difficult matter to figure out what should be done about them. Your input is invited. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mdd (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion about your academic bios: Adjectives of praise are usually not needed even when there is a direct source for them. If the notability is clear, the article shows it; if the notability marginal perhaps the source was resorting to puffery itself, as is common in obituaries. Neither dowe need an adjective saying that an award was given for the person's "outstanding" work, since the award shows it. Avoiding them prevents the article from giving a mistaken impression of promotionalism . cf Paul Cilliers . DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mdd,

I'd love to get your input on the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_H._Cameron_(2nd_nomination)#Brian_H._Cameron

Nickmalik (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

still hoping for your contribution user:mdd Nickmalik (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you contributed to the page CLEAR Framework for Enterprise Architecture in the past. I have submitted the page for deletion through the WP:AFD process. Please feel free to join the discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CLEAR_Framework_for_Enterprise_Architecture Nickmalik (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance to the conversation page and previous answer.

I am active in Wikipedia Japanese version mainly.

I want to ask another.

I can't read well English.

So, Could you please cooperate with the translation?--翼のない堕天使 (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You deleted my edits for Atelier van Lieshout. I wonder why as I have permission from the artist. Both for the photo and the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjan1976 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. The reason is stated in the editssummary, see here: This is a fair use image and there is no rational available. Now the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria apply here, which sort of state that fair-use is only permitted if no other free (or actually under GFDL/CC license) image is available.

• Now in the Funky Bones article this (still) is the case. This is an article about the sculpture and there is no free image avaibble
• However in the Atelier Van Lieshout there are plenty other images available, see here

Now you state that you have permission from the artist, but this is not enough. First of all you need also permission of the photographer, who made the picture itself. If the picture is taken in the park of the museum, you might also even need permission from the museum. And then it is not enough, that you are granted permission. Wikipedia articles are created to be shared by anybody under cc licence. The permission should be granted to anybody.

To use the picture in the Atelier van Lieshout article, it should be first properly released at Wikimedia Commons under CC-license, with the different permissions. I know from own experience in similar cases, that this is very complex (but I can explain if you want). Adding an alternative image, which I did, is an easy solution. -- Mdd (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo! Sorry that this is so out of the blue, but I'm looking to revive WikiProject Systems, and I want to know if enough people would be interested. Since you were the founding member of the project and from what I see still regularly contributing to Wikipedia, I felt it natural to approach you first, before I make any dramatic changes to the project. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasuke Sarutobi, thanks for your initiative, which looks challenging in many ways. You're most welcome to continue making improvements. At the moment I have my own priorities, but in time I hope to continue to support this initiative. -- Mdd (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you removed a speedy deletion request, giving the edit summary "Well referenced article". Did you read the speedy deletion reason? It was because the article is promotional, not because of a lack of references. 79.123.75.60 (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, would you say an article like International Association of Business Communicators should have to be deleted for the same reason? -- Mdd (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1084 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt:, thanks very much. I might have missed the Precious prize during my leave of absence. I hope to continue contributing to Wikipedia's representation of systems science, because there lots to improve. -- Mdd (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.., now five years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence for notability

While all constructive 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. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some extra info is added after some extra sources were already added (and the prod. nomination removed). -- Mdd (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Social network page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Mdd, not a problem at all! I hope you have a great day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Mdd, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of David J. Hickson. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 22:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdd, I'm reaching out because I see you've recently been involved in editing Dow Corning and I was hoping you could take a look at a COI request I made on the article's Talk page. I work for a communications agency that represents Dow Corning, so I won't make any direct edits, but I have a few suggestions for citing information currently in the article and adding a few more basic facts. I would be really grateful if you could take a look and let me know what you think. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mary, indeed I made a reference to the William C. Goggin article, which is interesting from a organizational theoretical point of view. Improving the article itself, and taking a stand in these controversial matters is however no my thing. I am sorry. -- Mdd (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the quick reply! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdd. Thanks for improving the article on Inger Andersen! Was she born in 1958 (text of introduction) or 1959 (infobox)? Just a typo but I don't know which one to correct ;). Hartelijke groet en dank! Nl maclean (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, the correction has been made. Just for the record: These things are easy to check with the Google search [6] and [7]. -- Mdd (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know - thanks! Nl maclean (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdd, I've noticed several articles on notable accountants that you've created recently. I get notifications because they link to/from Accounting Hall of Fame, an article that i started, and which went to AFD, my first. Glad to see you proceeding. (Tiny note: in the Clough article, you say "induced" when you mean "inducted".) One source that I recall was pretty good for briefly describing notability of numerous early inductees was this one: Burns, Thomas J., and Edward N. Coffman. "The Accounting Hall of Fame: A Profile of the Members". Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn 1976): 342-47. I found and used it during the AFD only, I think. I could get and email a PDF copy of it to you, if you'd like, and could possibly run lit searches on any individual persons if requested. Either way, I appreciate what you've been doing in this area -- and I see you've covered notable engineers and others, too -- which I think is quite important. Keep up the good work! cheers, --doncram 17:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and thanks for the tips. I hope to get full JSTOR access one of these days, and will take a look. It is a great challenge to (first) connect the dots especially with the multiple excellent reference works available online. -- Mdd (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I tried to ping you from the Talk page of Richard Mattessich article but i miss-capitalized your username as MDD rather than Mdd. I had just noticed Richard Mattessich article but only by chance: it popped up in my notifications because it linked to The Accounting Review which apparently I started, and I happened to browse to follow the notification. I expect you've creaated a lot more biography articles in this area that I haven't seen. Feel free to give me pings by {{U|Doncram}} or any other way, if ever you'd like me to browse by and do the small-type edits i can do easily, like on minor grammar and spelling.

Or if there's some list you'd like me to browse through, i'd be happy to. Hmm, is there, or should there be, a List of accounting researchers, to correspond to a category of them? I think there should be, going beyond the Accounting Hall of Fame list. Is there a list of the notable engineers and others that you've been doing? Hmm, I notice the Richard Mattessich article is not in any accounting researcher-type category yet, what is the category that should be added? Maybe a new category or two are justified. You're doing great work, keep it up! Cheers, --doncram 14:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. After checking I noticed about 35+ new articles in the field, (which are now added to the Category:Accounting academics), and you are welcome to do your thing. As to your question about a possible new list, I noticed different groups: accounting pioneers, practicing accountants, accounting scholars, history of accounting scholars.... in cost accounting or financial accounting, etc. The term "accounting researchers" might not be appropriate as general term. I am not (yet) convinced, that a new category is needed, but it seems worthwhile to further fill/develop the Category:Accounting academics. -- Mdd (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, Category:Accounting academics is fine and better. I just wasn't finding that. A list of accounting academics could be organized chronologically, pretty much putting pioneers first, and could include university persons known for either research or teaching, and i think could include historic practicing accountants who weren't at a university but wrote influential publications, too, to capture pretty much all persons contributing to accounting theory & practice. Or maybe all contributors could be called accounting scholars, more clearly not restricting to university types only. Maybe someday i'll work on such a list, no time soon. Again, happy about existing category. Cheers, --doncram 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some further changes - I thought I was communicating with you rather than putting them up online. Please check and turn into correct format where necessary - if you approve the content.

Tony

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajc17 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

In Jill H. Larkin, I just corrected some of your punctuation.

right: pages 298–312

wrong: pages 298-312

right: During the 1982–83 academic year

wrong: During the 1982-83 academic year

Ranges of pages, years, letters of the alphabet, etc., require an en-dash, not a hyphen. See WP:MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel, could you please take a look at the Situated learning page? I started with some comments on the talk page, but then found the content so awful that I tried to fix up the introduction. This still isn't quality work, but the entry is not as misleading as it once was. In my opinion, most of the page of the content could be deleted without damaging the central idea, but I'm afraid to try that drastic an edit. Situated learning is more associated with Jean Lave, and there's a continuing evolution of ideas by Étienne Wenger on Community of practice that is apart from the original idea. The challenge with Wenger and Lave is that it's a large body of work, so it could be better handled by someone who can parse out the distinctions. Daviding (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Visual Sociology Association, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Visual%20sociology/en-en/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, see edit summary. -- Mdd (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Perfect Order page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, you are invited to this merger discussion. Lbertolotti (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Project Management Association 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/International Project Management Association 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. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an accidental edit I had made to Requirements analysis, which is how I ended up on your user page. I was blown away by the breadth and depth of your contributions to the encyclopedia. Thank you so much. --Ori Livneh (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. I like to get to the bottom of things, and and try to keep improve its Wikipedia coverage, and I am glad this is appreciated. -- Mdd (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel, I was searching on Dale Dougherty, and found that that he doesn't have an entry. Further, he's mentioned on O'Reilly Media with a non-sensical redirection loop back to the same page! For significance, not only did Dougherty co-found O'Reilly Media, he coined the term "Web 2.0" and started the Maker Movement and Maker Faire. See a 2014 article at http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/1862515-181/sebastopols-dale-dougherty-out-to?page=0 .

Could you please undo the redirection so that Dougherty at least has a starter page, and then people could edit that. Thanks. Daviding (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do here is to address the concerns, with which the initial article was turned into a redirect (see here). Now any news article is generally considered a less reliable source. Articles are preferably sourced with references from books written by authorities in the field. -- Mdd (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/innovations/v007/7.3.dougherty.html suffice? He is the author of many books. Daviding (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia:Third-party sources, see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- Mdd (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be hitting a technical deterrent on a biography of a living person for this entry on Wikipedia. In my dissertation, I can cite multiple newspaper and magazine articles on this individual, all from independent sources who credibly say the same thing. However, the rewriting of a redirection loop is currently beyond my technical ability. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia, but my interest in this article is waning. I have used Wikipedia as an easy source to track back references while writing my dissertation, and contribute corrections and clarifications when I find them. However, if it's hard for me to make a change, I am moving on. I don't have an interest in the individual, but found it curious that he is so notable, and yet the Wikipedia page on him has a self-referential loop. My interpretation of Wikipedia: Third-party sources is that that requirement can easily be met, but I can't help edit a page that in effect doesn't really exist because of the redirection. Daviding (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MDD. I'm working at the Insitute of Management at the University of St. Gallen. One of the professors, Markus Schwaninger, wanted me to update his wikipedia page. He gave me the text he wanted and I had to copy paste it to the wikipedia site. Now you wrote me that most of the text were undo and i don't know exactly why:)... I'm new to this subject so I hope you can tell me how i shoud go on. Mr. Schwaninger really wants to change his text because some of the information right now are simply false... Thanks for helping me! Floow92 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floow92 (talk • contribs)

Hi Floow92, in this situation that you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and notice some information is still incorrect, please specify those concerns at the articles talk page, at Talk:Markus Schwaninger. As to your other question, all those edits made to the article are explained in the edit summaries, which can be read at the articles history, here. -- Mdd (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You removed Pyotr Grigorenko’s name from Template:Cybernetics but he really was a professor of cybernetics (proof).

Psychiatrick (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indeed, after World War II he was appointed professor of cybernetics at the Frunze Military Academy, Russia's equivalent of West Point Academy, where he head the cybernetics faculty, and he made some notable contributions to the human rights movement. However, these templates are generally restricted to scientists in the field, who made seminal contributions to that particular field, and that is what I am missing here. -- Mdd (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Pyotr Grigorenko was one of scientists in the field, who made seminal contributions to that particular field but he worked at the Frunze Military Academy which generally classifies scientific studies by its military scientists as secret and restricts access to them. That way of dealing with scientific studies is typical of the Russian military. Psychiatrick (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Dobson 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/Andrew Dobson (2nd nomination) 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. Bencherlite^Talk 13:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wayne Eckerson 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/Wayne Eckerson 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. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify the issue that I just marked? --bender235 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am trying to add a photograph to the page of my friend Howard New but I keep getting the warning {{autotranslatebase=Abusefilter-warning-baduploads}} I noticed that you have previously edited his page. Can you tell me how to do it? Many thanks Tiengox2001 Tiengox2001 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mdd. I recently rewrote the page on lattices (discrete subgroups in Lie groups). I noticed that the article is classified as within the scope of the WikiProject Systems, as indicated in the talk page. However this was not reflected in the content and my edit did not change that. Do you have any idea what uses can be made of this mathematical objects in systems theory? My best guess would be the construction of expander graphs, which is not on the page but is on the linked page on arithmetic groups, but I'm an illiterate as far as systems theory goes. I am asking you because the page history indicates that you added the assessment in the project, and the latter seems to be dormant at present. If you have any suggestions about this I'd be happy to make the necessary edits (or if you are interested in working on the page yourself I'd be happy to try to help to harmonise between the math/applications content). In addition, the page as it stands now is probably hard to read for anybody without a serious mathematical background, and any suggestions to improve the expositions are welcome. Best, jraimbau (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jean, thanks for your work. In 2008 (see here) the page was added to the subfield of dynamical systems, but I cannot recall the connection, and this is not really my field of expertice. Best regards -- Mdd (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. I guess the page will remain more or less as it is for the time being. Best, jraimbau (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of bands from the Netherlands 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 bands from the Netherlands 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Béla H. Bánáthy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdd,

may I ask you for an evidence of the birth year 1970 you had added here? The information has been copied to several Wikipedia clones in the past 3-4 years which makes it impossible to verify it. Appreciating your support on this topic. Regards --RonaldH (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RonaldH, I guess I must have found it somewhere, but I cannot recall the source at once. The German Wikipedia lemma mentions "Abitur [in] 1989" which is generally at the age of 19 so 1970 is about right. -- Mdd (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fact I had added earlier today. However, I wasn't able to find the birth year anywhere. --RonaldH (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Complex Systems Journal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Majora (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, William Joseph Hedley, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Engineering system. Since you had some involvement with the Engineering system redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Robin S (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo Diversey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:European Journal of Information Systems.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

There's a watchlist, of all the pages in the portal namespace, for viewing Related changes.

And more.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   14:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   23:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Klaus Krippendorff 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/Klaus Krippendorff 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mdd. You added an WP:OR to the Process management (Project Management) page. Given the number of sources I cited on the page, can you help me understand what areas you thought were violations of the OR policy?.. Also I think the change you made to the definition doesn't work as you modified the quote from" is a ..."systematic series of ..." to "is the management of "systematic series of..." (emphasis added)... so the definition is now circular. namely, Process management is the management of ..., etc... Can we discuss this and come up with something that works for both of us?... Many thanks Risk Engineer (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year Mdd. I propose reverting the changes on the definition and removing the WP:OR in 30 calendar days. Many thanks Risk Engineer (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The part "model-based learning in education" looks like it has just been written to promote BlendSpace. See the picture. Why does it mentions this particular tool and not other more popular ones? Why this part is needed in the first place? Model-based learning in education doesn't coincide with the whole article and looks like a separate piece. And in a scope of Scientific modelling and its history, applications doesn't make sense to me. This part boosts about benefits of model-based learning in education and in a way prompts teachers to download an app. I may be wrong, but please justify the need for this part. I started a new section in the article to discuss this matter. --Tavadyan (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cover Interfaces.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.

---

---

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Klaas `Z4␟` V 14:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the information on turnover in France from 98 to 44 billion euros 80.220.72.131 (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of the ASME.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]