User talk:Gertbuschmann/Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets

Article

Someone has put a multiple issues-tag on this article which bears a newpage-tag. Some examples must be mentioned, so that I can decide if the demanded is the same as the corrections I have in mind myself. Especially that with personal reflections. I mention in the beginning the Wikipedia articles containing the material used in my article. Some facts are not yet in these, but at present I am contributing actively to articles within my field, and I have in mind to introduce things in these articles before I make my article official. {Gertbuschmann (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Here is an explanation of the meanings of the various issues tags:

"It does not cite any references or sources" - please read the linked policy on verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research".
"It uses first-person or second-person inappropriately" - second person is used throughout this article, in phrases such as "we will limit ourselves ...", "We will state all the definitions ...", ""We will also look at ...". Addressing the reader directly is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article - see the Wikipedia style guidelines.
"It may contain original research" - you must not use your own unpublished research as a basis for Wikipedia articles - see our "no original research" policy. To prove that the material is not original research, you must provide links to reliable sources. This is not just a "nice to have" - the continued absence of reliable sources is grounds for deleting the article.
"It reads like a personal reflection or essay" - the essay style is apparent in phrases such as "The theory of the Julia sets starts with this question ...", "To begin with, we must find all the Fatou domains ..." and "We can find the different attracting Fatou domains in the following way ..." Our policy entitled "What Wikipedia is not" says "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples". I think that this issue can only be addressed by a complete re-write of the article, which should become much shorter as a result.

I hope this makes the issues clearer to you. Please make sure that you address all of these issues as soon as possible. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is the write an article, which can be regarded as a supplement to the main Mandelbrot and Julia articles, and which only deals with the making of pictures and which only contains the formulas used for that. Many readers find articles such as Mandelbrot set and Attractor too technical. They go to these articles because they have some interest in mathematics and programming, they know how to make a simple Mandelbrot program, but they want to make something more advanced. I am sure that such an article would be popular, and with such an article the main articles could bear to be made more technical.

However, I see that the opinions differ on this question, since I am instructed on reference problems and second-person talk. As to the first: my project is based on facts that are so elementary and essential, that they ought to be found in the articles Julia set, Mandelbrot set and Attractor. I will take care of that the necessary (with references) will be written.

As regards the language, I understand that we mathematicians are not allowed to speak as we do in our papers and lectures, we must not say "Let us assume that M is a ...", we must only say "Let M be a ...", but this is easily done, you see. If you seek after the word "we" in Mandelbrot set, for instance, you will find it at least thirty times. I must admit that I account for half of these, I will soon put that right, but what with the others "we"'s in the article?

Because of this resistance, I will divide up my article, and start with an article called "Pictures of Julia sets", for then all the material I use is already in Julia set and then the language can easily be corrected. I will then invite people visiting the Julia set talk page to comment my initative. (Gertbuschmann (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think you have grasped one of the key points that I was trying to explain above. Wikipedia is not a textbook. If you wish to write a guide to drawing computer-generated images of fractals, then you can do so at Wikibooks or Wikiversity; it is not an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are not taking these issues seriously, and you seem to have no intention of addressing them. I have therefore nominated this article for deletion - the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the article. I will bring this matter up for dicussion - possibly write a Wikibook. (Gertbuschmann (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You blanked the page, which is *not* the same as deleting the article. If you blank a page, the page name remains in Wikipedia's index, and previous version of the page are still visible. Only administrators can properly delete a page and its history. Blanking a page leaves a mess behind, so I reverted your blanking. If you want this article to be properly deleted, go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets and say so. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the objections on the grounds of first-person language are specious. To construe them literally as referring to the author would be stupid. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS guidelines clearly discourage the use of "I" and "we" in Wikipedia articles - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First-person pronouns. However, I agree that the style issues are the least of the problems with this article. The complete lack of sources and the inability of the author to provide such sources is a far more serious problem. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]