Talk:Meta-system

The role of A.M. Gadomski

There is something seriously wrong with this article. It mentions A.M. Gadomski in the second sentence:

Meta-systems have several definitions. In general, they link the concepts "system" and "meta-".

According to this vague indication, suggested by A.M.Gadomski, we may assume that meta-systems or metasystems are systems composed of the common properties of a large class of systems but not related to its particular domain-dependent properties.

When I made a the following link to the work of Gadomski:

New Paradigms of Meta-System Engineering- Adam Maria Gadomski, 1999, ENEA's Server.

This link was deleted right away as linkspam. This doesn't seems right. You mention Gadomski in the article and make a reference... Or you don't mention it and make no reference. Deleting a reference as linkspam doesn't make any sence. - Mdd 09:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was his usual linkspam, through one of a number of sock puppets. My apologies. The article certainly needs an expert opinion as to the lead, as long as we recognize that, for the purpose of Wikipedia, Adam, himself, cannot be considered an expert. Whether or not he is an expert, he is (or should be) forbidden from editing the article under WP:COI, in view of his edit history.

If the external links were convirted to references, we could see at a glance that only the lead is referenced, and the rest of the article may be WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this feedback. I realize now that things are a little complicated here. I doubt that just putting back that linkspam is a right solution. A better soulution seems to be to remove both the mentioning A.M.Gadomski and the link to his homepage. One way or an other, the current intro sucks. I'll see if I can improve this a little sone. - Mdd 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..."no comments" I see, the problem is too difficult for you. Your discussions are not very intelligent here... I am sorry.This is a weak side of Wikipedia, unfortunately we have too many experts for evrything... Adam M. Gadomski (talk)04:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.138.255 (talk) [reply]

Start class is putting it kindly

I've marked a section as needing copyediting, but to be honest the whole page is dreadful. The use of English is so poor that I doubt it can be copyedited by an expert in systems science because so little meaning comes across. About all I understand from reading it twice is that "meta-system" means a model of a system, and that it may have a different meaning in economics. (Having read a bit of VSM, the cybernetics section makes a little more sense.) For example:

A mathematical modelling rule system for a domain D is an example of a meta-system in mathematics and science, for similar and consistency of concrete or frequency found in models within a domain.

Why does it link to these pages? Why does it define "D" and then not use it? What on earth is it supposed to mean? Can I suggest that whoever contributed this contributes instead to Wikipedia in their own language, and then ask someone else to translate it? If this doesn't happen, maybe the best solution is delete the nonsensical sections. --Cedders^tk 14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]