User talk:RandyBurge

W. brian arthur

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of W. brian arthur, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.leggmason.com/billmiller/conference/speakers/arthur.asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of W. brian arthur

A tag has been placed on W. brian arthur, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:{{{1}}}|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.east.718 at 23:48, 10/27/2007 23:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:W Brian Arthur Economist.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:W Brian Arthur Economist.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. Brian Arthur

Hi, I have noticed that you have been changing this article a lot of times lately, and I like to warn you that the article is not improving. You can not add all the information you want, and change the format to something only you like better. There are possibilities to improve this article but your last moves are not smart. This can even be the reason, why this article will be removed again. And this is something I like to avoid.

Please contact me or add a response here and I will tell you more about this. I can even give you some assistence with the picture if you like. - Mdd (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have an editwar you can have it, but I garantee you that I am going to get you removed if you continu. I have left you two messages. Here and on the talk page and instead of reacting you just referted my edits. This is not the way we do things in Wikipedia. We communicate. If you refert me again, I am going to ecuse you of vandalism or something like that ...!? So please first communicate on one of the the talk pages - Mdd (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment is copied from the User talk:Mdd‎ page

I received your comments about the edits I have been making. Thank you for your comments and concerns. The communication process here is not very straight forward so I am not sure if/when you will receive this note.

I am new to the Wikipedia process and do not want cause any issues. My edits are intended to add value, not detract from value. I have been making a number of edits to improve the grammatical and content value related to Brian Arthur's works. He has written a number of papers important to business, scientific, and economic topics.

I met with Brian Arthur over the weekend when he was at the Santa Fe Institute to get confirmation of the information listed on this/his page. I expect to make some further edits, but will stop after these further edits are done.

I have received two automated responses from the Wikipedia bots, both of which I worked to correct. I was given permission to use the photo of W. Brian Arthur by Brian Arthur. I don't know how to complete the Wikipedia usage process to ensure complete authorization.

Please respond to me with your thoughts/advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyBurge (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I'm interested in working together and I want to apologize if I didn't make that impression. I made those corrections to the W. Brian Arthur page to avoid that this article is getting into trouble as I have seen with more articles. Now there are more things I can tell, but I first want to ask you to communicate on one place. I have left a message here, and continu here because (I monitor your talkpage (along with some other 800 pages) and can see if you respond) I like to keep my conversation on one place at the time. Ok? If you just add ok, here below, I will continu (tomorrow). - Mdd (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your contact.

New chapter

Ok. One thing, you should sign your messages, just use these four characters ~~~~ and the editor automatically signs your username and time.

Now you (or we) first have a problem with the "W. Brian Arthur" image and we have about one week to fix this. And it is not easy, even for me have three years of experience. We can talk about the article later. Ok? - Mdd (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your suggestions/tutorials in stepping me through the acclimation process. - RandyBurge (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing your contribution. A second thing is, that I have moved your respons outside my message and will continu doing so. It is difficult to continue talking with text inside the text. So I avoid this at all times. - Mdd (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that the image is not yet proposed for deletion. But this will happen soner or later. You need to add some extra information. Maybe even send an email to a Wikipedia administrator confirming that that image is as you say copyright free. The easiest thing to do is to add a request at this page Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Just ask what you should do? If you want I can do it? - Mdd (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mdd. I will try your contact-the-wikipedia-administrator suggestion first, by way of learning the process. Thanks for watching out for my success at doing it. - RandyBurge (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator will probably tell you that you need a written approval from the photographer and/or from W. Brian Arthur that he releases the picture under the GFDL license...!? - Mdd (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the W. Brian Arthur article

As to the W. Brian Arthur article. Adding more publications like the detailled list isn't appreciated in Wikipedia articles. In general one reference to a complete list of his publication would do. - Mdd (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started Arthur's page from scratch, my first full bio page to start. In the extensive chain of Wikipedia contributors, I have assumed some responsibility for providing accurate, unbiased, information about him and will continue to monitor the page.

Brian is one of the leading economists in the world in the measure of many people for his works in studying increasing returns. There is some chance that he may win a Nobel Prize in Economics someday, perhaps soon, so his page should provide a fairly comprehensive and informative summary of his works, as well as his life, at least in my opinion. His papers are among some of the most cited papers in economics. One of the reasons for his wide appeal is that he translates the more rigid economic theories into real world adaptive models that account for the complexities inherent in a non-static system.

So, my interest in listing his works was based on this wide appeal. No other source provides the bibliographic coverage of his works, so referencing another page, per your suggestion, is not possible. One of the great values of Wikipedia to me, as a longtime user of the source, is that it calls attention to topical details in many cases that I otherwise have to sort through many other web searches to find. I proceeded to develop Brian's page in this spirit. I conferred with other Nobel-class economist pages for guidance.

In Brian's case, I compiled the list of his worthy publications and communications into three subsections, Selected Books, Selected Papers, and Selected Articles. This list was on Wikipedia for a month without question or comment after I first compiled the page. Thinking about it after my visit with Brian, I realized, from a reader's accessibility point of view, the list included helpful interviews and lectures. In the flurry of edits that caught your attention, I did not add any new items to the list that had been there for a month, rather I ordered them into easier-to-comprehend categories for the reader's benefit, at least in my opinion/experience.

Given my comments above, I appeal to you to allow me to restore the bibliography in Brian's case in a more full fashion. Ironically, I was done with my editing/reordering of the list when you came online with your comments. Of course, Wikipedia users can just google topics and sort through hundreds of web pages for the same information as I had to do, or Wikipedia can provide it succintly. Please let me know your thoughts about reinstating the bibiography in a fuller form. - RandyBurge (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no website listing Brains publications I suggest you advice Brain to create one yourselve. Using Wikipedia as a personal website is out of the question. You should take a closer look at how other biographical article are build.

There is one way to eventually get all the important articles relisted by making for example a summary of these articles and add the article itselve as a reference. Again just putting the list back is no option. - Mdd (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion about the summary approach. I will take your advice and work it that way, although this approach will make his entry longer than if done in the bibliographic format. - RandyBurge (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longer? I sometimes look at the article of Einstein for an example. I am not that good, but some of the better articles I made were Debora Hammond and Ralph W. Gerard. A more complete list of my contributions is given on my user page. - Mdd (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references to the other sites and citation indices contained in each. Your Hammond article is good. Seeing those examples is helpful to me.

I do note that in both Einstein's and Hammond's pages, 20+- citations for books and papers were allowed in each bibliography. Based on these examples, I do think you have been a little harsh on the edit of the bibliography I developed for Arthur. Granted, I do admit I was getting carried away with adding the google scholar citation counts, and perhaps the subheadings but otherwise the counts were in line and deserved. I can also work to shorten the citations.

As an outside user to Wikipedia before now, I think the examples you suggested are about the right length for a bibliography section for most people's quick benefit. I know people's CV's can list pages of publications, which I concur is not feasible or reasonable for Wikipedia purposes.

I do note, though, that Brian Arthurs's bibliography that I put together was approximately that length = 20+. By these measures you point out, I suggest that my biblio for Arthur was reasonable and appropriate length. Einstein's page, of course, refers the reader to a much more comprehensive list.

I developed the bibliography not so much to tout Brian's work in the full CV way, but to give readers direct access to the information without having to leave the Wikipedia site. RandyBurge (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Debora Hammond article is 7 pages long and list 10 articles. Your was 3 pages listing about 27 articles and other hits. As I said before, write these into the article as references. If you think you can talk your way out of here, I propose you try somebody else. - Mdd (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mdd, I appreciate the need for consistency between articles and your strong commitment to the cause, otherwise things are in chaos and lose credibility. I have no problems conforming. I accept that I went beyond the boundaries in your more expert judgement, since I did not know the limits or the process.

However, I suggest the resolution is somewhere between where you have taken the citations and where I was going with them (too far). My request is not to reinstate them all, but to include the ones of core relevance to Brian Arthur's body of work. That is fair to him and to the public.

As far as my reverting the article back to an earlier form yesterday, I did want to clarify that point. I did not do that intentionally in defiance of your messages. When I did it I was responding to the automatic messages that the article was going to be deleted due to copyright issues. I removed the links in the articles with any external links to published works. Only after that did I see your notes. - RandyBurge (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us just move forward. Important articles can come back as references. - Mdd (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further improvement

If you want to improve the article some more you can add new chapters about his work, where you descripe the mean features of his work and more important, what other scientists have done with this contributions. What did he contribute to the scientific community and beyond? Now these things are most of the time difficult to determine. That is why we use secondairy literature about scientists and most of the time make abstracts of these works. So you have to focus both on what he did and how it was received. Good luck. - Mdd (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recommendation about adding chapters about his work. In fact, that is my next step in the process of completing a first full iteration of Brian's Wikipedia page, at least from my efforts. I created Brian's page from the web scan information mentioned above over a several week period. During my recent visit with Brian I was able to gain more information about the types of information that comprise the descriptive content you suggest. I plan to add/edit this information in the next few weeks. - RandyBurge (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This futher improvement is the difficult part, because you have to change perspective. The Google search in books has made this work a lot easier this year. - Mdd (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Can Google Books be referenced for Arthur's biblio from Wikipedia in an ongoing hyperlink basis? (Does the hyerlink on Google stay the same regardless of search or is it a dynamic link? I haven't tried that hyperlink yet, but if so, it solves the problem I am trying to address with the bibliography. - RandyBurge (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your not getting it. Forget the Arthur's biblio, focus on the results of his labour. Or I'm misjudging you here? Any Arthur's biblio is Arthur's concern, not ours. - Mdd (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your points. I added some thoughts related to this comment to one to the discussion threads above. By comparison with both Hammond and Einstein you pointed out, the citations I listed were in line with both the reader relevance and topical importance to both the academic and business/applied user/reader.

Almost immediately after I first completed the listing with the citation list a month ago, a Wikipedia editor took the list and worked it over, rearranging the list by sequential dates and made a few other slight edits. Frankly, I was very impressed by the speed and accuracy of that effort.

That editor didn't have a problem with any of the listings then. I guess I am confused by your deletion now. Otherwise, the list stood like it was for a month without any critical comment. In my mind, the changes at that point brought the list in line with the Wikipedia norm, confirmed by the examples you suggested I compare with. Granted, I fiddled with it some more, but only in structural ways.

As far as moving on, I am doing so along an established process to add to the body of the entry, in the direction you recommend to fill out the text/story. As you know, working as a volunteer, the process happens in chunks of time. I crafted the citation listing as a first order of work. I spent a lot of time developing it, and you have just wiped out that investment of time on my part. - RandyBurge (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you refer to the rearranging of the article, I did on 28 October, see here. I had my doubts all ready by then.

The reason why I noticed your article in the first place was, because I rearranged the Santa Fe Institute article, and had that article on my watch list. The moment you made a link there, I noticed. - Mdd (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work, then, has been impressive and helpful. I have worked around the Santa Fe Institute for a number of years. That page needs some more work in text/body, as well, all in due time. - RandyBurge (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page management process

Mdd, can you give me a quick overview of the Wikipedia page management process, or refer me to the help section with this information? Do you work as a volunteer or does Wikipedia pay you to "ride herd" (an American English cowboy term?) over the 600 or more pages your watch over? Are you the official or unofficial sheriff? As I understand it, Wikipedia has a small cadre of official staff, but succeeds through the thousands of volunteers like you and me. I am a journalist and work with editors so I appreciate the process. - RandyBurge (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reordering the conversation so that it is easier to follow. Impressive speed. I will be up to speed soon thanks to your guidance.RandyBurge (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here my last contribution: Wikipedia has editors and administrators, all volunteers. There is just a small foundation supporting the whole thing. Now I am just an editor, but I am also running the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems, with others. The WikiProjects are ment to improve the quality of articles. There are a lot of them, dozends or hunderds, all on a specific field. The WikiProject Systems works in the field of systems and Systems science and the article about Brian is within it's scoop. So that is the reason why we meet. I myself started some two hunderd articles myself and severly improved about the same number, half of them on the Dutch Wikipedia. On the English Wikipedia I am still learning, and my English still needs some work. Here and there with a view dozend other editors I now and then work together, so that is why I need to remain a clear view of the discussion. Ok? - Mdd (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mdd. Your investment in time and guidance to help me is greatly appreciated. - RandyBurge (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one thing I do for the WikiProject Systems. There are more then 400 articles within its scoop and if there are any questions, related to these articles I try to help. - Mdd (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about Wikipedia. Things move forward. Hardly ever thing move back to the way they were. I think you problem is, that at the moment you don't know were to start. - Mdd (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text/chapters

I am working on the text/chapter parts and will add them when they are mostly complete to minimize my editing online. The text will reference the important articles per your recommendation. - RandyBurge (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. - Mdd (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. Brian Arthur

I made a remark about the lead sentence of the W. Brian Arthur on the talkpage. Please take a look, thanks -- Mdd (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]