Misplaced Pages

A question about Astronomy

Hi Steve. Maybe you don´t remember me, but I was involved in the Jagged85 affair some time ago. I noticed you have great interest in Astronomy, so maybe you can answere me the following question: what´s the difference between an eccentric orbit and an elliptical orbit? Some time ago I though they were the same, but now I´ve been reading about greek astronomers, and the books say Hipparchus and Ptolemy used eccentric orbits, but I thought Kepler was the one who discovered the ellipticity of planetary orbits. So, what´s the difference between the two terms? I would be extremely grateful if you could help me out with this. Thanks for your time--Knight1993 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for clarifying that. I didn´t know a circle could be eccentric without becoming an ellipse. Now I understand Kepler´s contribution much better. I owe you one Steve.--Knight1993 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Madrasah

Hi Steve. I understand your opinion, and I think you´re right. It´s certainly not the best source. I´ll try to find better ones to see to what extent natural sciences were taught in the madrasas. Thanks for your advice--Knight1993 (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Astronomy in medieval Islam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

Roman total iron output

You are invited to take part in a discussion on a scholarly estimate of total Roman iron production here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Francesca Bray

Yes, I was surprised to see teosinte in SCC VI.2, myself. I believe that Needham was conversant with George Beadle's hypothesis about teosinte from the 1930s, and he influenced Bray. There are offhand comments about agriculture for Iran and England in SCC as well.

I have been studying SCC to get some closure on Needham's Grand Question and have come to believe that the failure to develop Capitalism is the cause of the slowness of the development of Science in China, compared to the West. Now that things have changed. ...

The wiki is slow, this is my second try to respond to you. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages

You are invited to participate in the vote at Talk:Science in the Middle Ages#Ballot box as an attempt to establish a consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

defamatory or potentially libellous?

The comments werent meant to be offensive, I am muslim myself (neither Arab nor Persian). The remarks were actually part of a much larger point I was trying to make, but[REDACTED] didnt allow me to make (because of the maximum words allowed to enter in the section). I was trying to make the point how the region in the 11th cent wasn't Arab in sense that it is now and how the far majority of scholars from that part of the world were ethnic Persians. Still, I cant believe that you changed my contributions based on my remarks.... Facts are facts, no matter who the messenger is (even if the messenger is some vile racist, which I absolutely am not). You are being very childish.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete my remarks, which I can understand, as I think they are a mistake. Don't delete information which is crucial to the person Alhazen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that his ethnicity isn't the most important thing about him, but in that case any reference about his etnicity should be removed (being that we are not sure about his). The page should describe him as a muslim or mesopotamian scientist, not an Arab one. Anyway, I think ethnicity does have a certain value. Ibn Khaldun, the famous Arab historian, wrote extensively about how Arabs are nearly absent in the muslim scientific field. About how the greatest scholars and scientists in the muslim world were non-Arabs. That statement wouldn't make any sense if Alhazen was Arab, being that the man is the single greatest scientist and innovator the Islamic world has produced. So, his ethnicity isn't very important for us to understand or appreciate Alhazen's work, but it does have value in that it helps us understand the early muslim community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll at SMA

Hi, Your recent edit to the headers of the poll has me somewhat confused. I thought we were talking about the sections of the SMA article, but your revised headers suggest we're now dealing with what to do with the other articles. I don't think you intended that but suggest you delete the links to the other articles to avoid any further confusion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am equally confused. The sections are titled with explicit links to explict articles. My understanding was that we were discussing what to do with each of the articles and SMA in particular. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Jagged85

Thanks for commenting on the issue.

First of all, let's not call this "criticism". Personal attacks, that make insults on a religious and political level, should have no place in wikipedia. If the early criticism had indeed been criticism (made by a now-blocked user), it would have been taken a lot more seriously.

Secondly, regarding "I hope we can count on your assistance in developing balanced and reliably sourced articles on Islamic science": most of my knowledge is on Islam, Islamic history etc. Hence most of my knowlege on history of chemistry, for example, would be on Muslim contributions to chemisty, and I'd be quite ignorant of western contributions.

Finally, I hope that we can correct damages without violating wiki policies, and with complete honesty. I came to know of this issue when I found Jagged85's contributions bieng deleted under false edit summaries, and my own contributions being deleted.

Thanks,Bless sins (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

One more point: balanced behavior on my part will necessitate balanced behavior on the part of other editors (including yourself). If I see editors are on a deleting spree, deleting properly sourced and written material while doing a legitimate clean up of the Jagged85 mess, then most of my time will be spent on preservation of the material.Bless sins (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to fix collapse template

Hello. In an effort to cover all the bases regarding evidence in the form of diffs and explanations, I have a question for you. Here in the edit summary it says "Trying to fix collapse template". I am sure that Stevertigo created this template. If he created and placed this template on the talk page, why are you trying to fix it? It probably doesn't mean anything. I am surprised that you didn't simply remove it. Well, in the next diff it was removed along with the duplicated content . However, in the next diff it appears that Stevertigo added back, what was removed . And this is still in the thread at this moment, along with his focus on "minutiae and technicalities rather than the big picture". Why did the consensus (group) decide to leave the box in, along with the duplication, and Stevertigo's comments? Hope you don't mind. And you don't have to reply to any of this if you don't want to. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. The case is essentially over, and decided, and it will close within the next day or so. Thanks anyway for any reply that you might have provided. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom voting system RFC.

Kepler's disease

Nice job on conclusively demonstrating it's a hoax, I've now deleted it as vandalism. Thanks and keep up the good work. ~ mazca 07:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Posted new intro to Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Since you responded to my earlier post, I'm hoping you may find the time to help on this. There was a box suggesting, correctly in my view, that the article needed a new lead, before the TOC. I wrote one, and after a few edits of my own, posted it to the article a few minutes ago.

How is it that he box at the top now gets removed?

I'm sorry that I'm a bit naive as a wikipedian regarding this. Jbutler18 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Jagged85

I remember i once came accross a tendentious editor everyone was complaining about. I think I found his new account. I decided to discuss it with you as you were a main guy in that discussion.

• similarity

Both are interested in forced conversions

- and

- edit from jagged85 admitted anonymous IP

• similarity

- not using page numbers . He only later decided to use proper citations.

-jagged85

• similarity

- similar tag usage

-jagged85

• similarity

- swap structuring a religion or race in layout or orders

- jagged85 does as well and here too

• similarity

negative POV when it comes to Europeans , but positive POV of others,

- Both are interested in past empires and history

- A tendency to edit war with very strong opinions

- Both type fast and make dozens of edits in a matter of hours

- Same writing style

I started an edit war with him recently where he replaced good sources with others which give islam a higher proportion. My 6th sense just suspected jagged85. Do you think I have a case? Someone65 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Someone65 (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, never mind what i said there. Someone already did a check user and got a negative response. Sorry for wasting your time. Someone65 (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome

Good morning,

Interested in your thoughts on this proposal. Not necessarily expecting a positive response, still, your opinion is valued.

Regards

Aquib (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

atomism page of eng. wikipedia

I see that you have partecipated to discussion on “atomism” in the eng. article on wikipedia. I don't know if you have seen the recent talk page of this eng.[REDACTED] article. I tried unsuccessfully to amend this sentence:

“...The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BC, appearing first in Jainism. The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects....”

The same sentence is in “atom” eng. article of wikipedia.

“...The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE, appearing first in Jainism. The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects. ...”

In Nyaya article: I see that “the Nyaya school of philosophical speculation is based on texts known as the Nyaya Sutras, which were written by Aksapada Gautama from around the 2nd century.” Written !?

If you go to Aksapada Gautama article: “ The Nyāya Sūtras are an ancient Indian text on of philosophy composed by Akṣapāda Gautama (also Gotama; c. 2nd century). The sutras contain five chapters, each with two sections. The core of the text dates to roughly the 2nd century, although there are significant later interpolations.”

In Vaisheshika article : Vaisheshika, or Vaiśeṣika, is one of the six Hindu schools of philosophy (orthodox Vedic systems) of India. Historically, it has been closely associated with the Hindu school of logic, Nyaya. Vaisheshika espouses a form of atomism and postulates that all objects in the physical universe are reducible to a finite number of atoms. Originally proposed by the sage Kaṇāda (or Kana-bhuk, literally, atom-eater) around the 2nd century BC.

In Kanada article It has been claimed that Kashyapa, later known as Kanada (Sanskrit: कणाद; also transliterated as Canada as well as other forms) was a Hindu sage and philosopher who founded the philosophical school of Vaisheshika. He talked of Dvyanuka (biatomic molecule) and tryanuka (triatomic molecule). He probably lived around the 2nd century BCE, while other sources claim he lived in the 6th Century BC. It is believed that he was born in Prabhas Kshetra (near Dwaraka) in Gujarat, India.

In the Jain section of atomism article. The most elaborate and well-preserved Indian theory of atomism comes from the philosophy of the Jaina school, dating back to at least the 6th century BC. Some of the Jain texts that refer to matter and atoms are Pancastikayasara, Kalpasutra, Tattvarthasutra and Pannavana Suttam. You can see that Pancastikayasara, Kalpasutra, Tattvarthasutra they are all written in advanced CE era.

I think that history is based on write record. How is possible to use “superlative” adjectives “The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE, appearing first in Jainism. “ Why not in Hinduism ? And without written text !!!. Is not better to write “probably atomism is born ancient India, etc etc “

What do you think ?

Andriolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.58.29 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Science in the Middle Ages: Vote and scope

Hi. Check out Talk:Science in the Middle Ages#On vote Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anomaly link

Hello Steve, I think you removed the redirect to 'anomaly' in the Kuhn intro. Is this because you believe the content on the anomaly wiki entry is misleading when compared to how Kuhn uses the term? Cheers --pjm (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Toledo School of Translators

The article is back, and you might want to look at it. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing

Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)