User talk:Jagged 85/Archive 4

Review of Muzaffar Iqbal's Science & Islam

I thought you might be interested to have a look at Robert Irwin's review of Muzzaffar Iqbal's book Science * Islam in the Jan 25 issue of TLS (pp. 8-9). Iqbal is a strident defender of Islamic science, against the perhaps overly-pessimistic claims of blowhards like Steven Wienberg. Irwin, I think, strikes just about the right balance between the two. You might find it an interesting piece. 76.69.140.17 (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Psychology

I have made your contributions to the history of psychology entry, and their aftermath, the topic of a blog entry at http://ahp.yorku.ca/?p=299. I thought that you might want to read it (and peraps leave a comment of your own, if you wish). Christopherdgreen (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Polymath

Hi. I noticed you added Mohammed as a polymath. While I tend to agree with you that he was, by long convention to avoid POV fights and edit warring, (believe me, there was a lot of argument about including/excluding people prior to this, which was all subjective and rather unpleasant) the article only includes figures described by RS as a "polymath". Do you have a reference for Mohammed being a polymath? If not, the inclusion should be removed, or perhaps "commented out" until one is found. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

jagged, I'm repeating Dweller's request here. We need a reliable source calling Mohammad a "polymath". It is OR to conclude ourselves that he was one. I'm putting the fact tag back in. Please find a source for this if you can. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-particpants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Asian pride

An editor has nominated Asian pride, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian pride (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Apostasy in Islam. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 06:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears I did break the 3RR rule, and it is my fault for not being careful, so I don't really see any point making excuses for my own carelessness. But I do have one question: Arrow704 also reverted my edits four times, so how can it be that only I get blocked and he doesn't? Jagged 85 (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, twice. Aminz reverted twice as well. Arrow740 (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like we both made three reverts, and then I made one more to Aminz. Never mind then. Jagged 85 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I made two, you made five. Arrow740 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Aminz only once, not twice. And yes, I just counted three reverts on your part. But like I said, never mind. It's pointless arguing any further over something trivial like this. Jagged 85 (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you reverted Aminz twice, and you miscounted my reverts again. The removal of "medieval" directly followed the previous edit; I meant to remove that word when cleaning up the intro. Consecutive reverts count as one. Arrow740 (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine-Arab Wars template

Please donot remove red links. They are there to show the reader the number of battles. They may not have articles, but that is something that you and I as editors should remedy with time, not simply delete them.

respectfully

Tourskin (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim psychology

I'm doing new page patrol at the moment and just wanted to say what a pleasure to come across your article. So many of the new pages are either vandalism, advertising or experimentation that it was a real treat to come across a fully-formed, well-illustrated, properly referenced article. Thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For making a new page patroller's day with a proper article! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I came across your new article Muslim psychology entirely by chance, but I'm very impressed by the quality of work you've produced, especially given its size. Well done. ITAQALLAH 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I also nominated your article to feature on the "Did you know..." section. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Alphonse de Lamartine

You cited his quote to www.cyberistan.org on Muhammad, and when that produced quite an uproar you simply stated that the reference was directly to his book. Have you verified that the book makes the statement you claim? Arrow740 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Polymath

Please see this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A polymath "is a person with encyclopedic, broad, or varied knowledge or learning." Arrow740 (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about Kaukab ali Mirza's book on Ja'far al Sadiq

While trying to track down who it was who added the citation to the above book to the article on Heliocentrism I noticed that you seem to have put in an enormous effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Islamic astronomy. Congratulations on all your great work.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that Ali Mirza's book doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. I have voiced my concerns on the Ja'far al Sadiq talk page and, in more detail, on the Heliocentrism talk page. Nevertheless, while Ali Mirza's book itself shouldn't be considered reliable (in my opinion), the French thesis on which it's supposedly based may well be. As I indicate on the Heliocentrism talk page I have tried to track down this thesis without any success. I therefore have a question for you. Does Ali Mirza give a traceable citation to this thesis in his book? If so, could you please post it?

On further investigation I have found that you were also responsible for posting the citation to an article "Light and Disease" in a journal called The Minister in the article on Ja'far al-Sadiq. I have been unable to find any details at all about this publication, and am therefore also concerned about its use as a source on Wikipedia. Could you please let me know who the publisher of the journal is, or if you no longer have the issue you cited I'd be grateful if you could at least let me know where you obtained your copy of it. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reference. It's not a thesis, it's an article in the proceedings of a conference (the Colloque de Strasbourg). Unfortunately, there is no library anywhere near me (in Australia) which holds a copy of those proceedings, and Worldcat tells me that the only ones listed in its database which do hold a copy are in Europe and Canada. I'm afraid I don't have time to pursue this any further. In any case, the article contains only 11 pages, while Ali Mirza's book contains 275 (according to its entry in the New York University library's catalogue). So even if some of the material in the book does come from this article, there must still be a huge amount that doesn't.

You should be made aware of one of Wikipedia's guidelines on the citing of sources. This says that when you cite sources they should be ones you have checked personally. I acknowledge that you did in fact try to indicate that you were citing The Minister indirectly, via the islamonline web site, but it was not at all clear (at least not to me) that that is what you were doing; and in the case of Ali Mirza's book you gave no indication at all that your information had come from anywhere other than the book itself (simply placing a link to a website in the external links section of the page doesn't constitute such an indication, in my opinion).

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim psychology

Salam Alaykum,

Thanks for your wonderful article. Do you agree to nominate it as a GA article.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham

Salam Alaykum.

The picture in not necessary for Good Article. At present I'm too busy and working on Day of Ashura. I'll tell you my idea about these two articles next week, God willing.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim psychology DYK

On 19 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muslim psychology, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cholesterol

I noticed your addition to cholesterol, crediting Avicenna with hypothesising the existence of cholesterol. I find this highly doubtful, and have removed it pending further clarification. Without for a moment wanting to downplay Avicenna's phenomenal contributions to medicine, I don't think we should make claims that amount to a simple anachronism. You have provided a citation from an article that clearly deals primarily with Avicenna's neurological contributions, rather than a direct reference to his own writings. No other source I could find makes this connection. On a separate note, cholesterol being "the cause of blood pressure" needs revision - perhaps you mean hypertension? JFW | T@lk 09:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Branster

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for your great efforts in Islamic astronomy which led to making a GA article.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please pay attention to Talk:Islamic astronomy#New efforts in Moon sighting.

Unfortunately I'm too busy now and can't check Ibn Heytham as well as Islamic psychology. Excuse me.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You have the chance that I didn't review it;-) --Seyyed(t-c) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I wanted to do this. :( Oh well, I think you deserve more than one barnstar.

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For editing Islamic astronomy to GA status, I award you this barnstar. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim scholars task force

Can you make this task force more active. Can you invite other wikipedians like who work on the history of science to participate in this task force.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Inventions in the Islamic world

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Inventions in the Islamic world, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Salam, I'm not active at present, but I would be happy to help you if you had such problems. God bless you. Just put a comment on my talk page. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Islamic astronomy

Salam Alaykum,

I added two section in that article. Please check it. Furthermore I put a comment on the talk page which relates to "Muslim's participation in western astronomy". I think Science and technology aren't neutral they are the result of especial culture, religion and philosophy. Thus each civilization has its own astronomy i.e. we have western, Islamic, Chinese and several other astronomies. Therefor we can't consider Muslim's participation in western astronomy as Islamic astronomy. I really believe that we have different sciences. Each civilization has its own science. Of course there are similarities between them but none of them is neutral. I don't have postmodern attitude but I don't believe in positivism too.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it good to use past tense for some parts like "an special science had been formed specifically for moon sighting."--Seyyed(t-c) 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of History of modern India

I have nominated History of modern India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From the WikiProject Islam

		The WikiProject of Islam Medal
		Congratulations! You have been selected as the best participants of the month as the general consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam indicates. On the behalf of the members of the WikiProject, I hereby award you this barnstar as an appreciation of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia during the last month (We probably have to create a special barnstar for this). Be happy!! (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== Common Law ==

In your contribution to the article common law, you mention a similarity to Islamic law. Was there any significant effect by Islamic law practice or thinking on the early development of English Common Law? If so, then the cause and effect should be explained. If not, then a better approach to incorporating Islamic law into this article would be somewhere else in the article, maybe as a comparison between Common Law and Islamic law in the same section along with the contrast between Civil Law and Common Law. As is, it's just a logical orphan and doesn't make sense. Boundlessly (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition on Islamic law threads in the commmon law fabric. It's very interesting - however it isn't the dominant factor that would be suggested by its placement, given the very very limited contact between the Islamic world and the British Isles until quite recently, and the discrete issues that seem to have migrated from Islamic law to British Common Law. May I move your paragraph to a separate section, maybe captioned "Islamic law threads," maybe just after the "Medieval Roots" section, and just before "propogation to the commonwealth and colonies?" Boundlessly (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

coordinator election

The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I NEED URGENT HELP!!!!!

HEY THANKS A MILLION FOR THE BOX I WAS WANDERING HOW TO DO IT,so thanks but i have a question i want to see if you can make me one those blue box charts in the Siege of Kapisa, go to edit this page and i tried a million times to make it look like a normal battle article with all the combatants, commanders casualites,exct... But i cant if you could and comment on my talk tell me so i can do it myslef, sorrylast favor! THANKS YOU ARE BENEFITING BILLIONS BY THE FUTURE FOR FURTHER KNOWLEDGE IN ANCIENT STUDIES! Praise be to Allah, the most gracious, most mercifull.

Latin translations of the 12th century

I just stumbled on this very useful article, which I have added categories to (it probably could do with more). I am trying to improve Oriental studies, which is I hope being extracted from its inappropriate home at Orientalism. Any additions welcome - you might also be interested in [[1]] - lively just now. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you clear up this reference?

Hi Jagged,

I was just checking the Scientific Revolution and found you added this confusing reference:

Katharine Park (March 1990). "Avicenna in Renaissance Italy: The Canon and Medical Teaching in Italian Universities after 1500 by Nancy G. Siraisi", The Journal of Modern History 62 (1), p. 169-170.

Could you disentangle the citation to Katherine Park from the citation to Nancy Siraisi.

Thanks --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it myself, It's a review by Park of Siraisi's book, but it turns out that the point Park is making does not refer to Avicenna but to the Italian physician, Santorio Santorio. I'll quote the entire text here, marking the part in the article in italics:

Santorio's work is a case in point. Students of the history of medicine know him for his attempts to introduce systematic experimentation and quantification into the study of physiology using a number of original scientific instruments. But Siraisi presents a much more nuanced picture. In his commentary on Canon 1.1, Santorio raised these new issues-even including woodcuts of his new thermoscopes and pulsilogia-while in other ways proving himself a staunch defender of Galenic orthodoxy.

I'll just remove the reference, since it doesn't address Avicenna. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indianized kingdom

I see you have a history of working on the article Indianized kingdom. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

still waiting

Jagged 85, what me and other wikip bloggers want to know is why these corrections are just being made now. why is that we have had to take it upon ourselves to change the lies and distortions that have been posted on this article. Is wiki not about honest research done by individuals that are concerned only about writting about the facts. Why have claims that are totattly inaccurate, distorted, and completely not neutral been posted on this page. Would any of the changes that are finally coming about have even been done if it werent for bloggers and other wiki users who exposed the garbage claims posted on this page. Why is it that authors of this page have decided to start with the premise of lieing and decieving and then waiting to be caught, and then make corrections. I can only think that it is becuase the authors of this web page arent really concerned about facts but only pushing their own form islamic nationalism, and then hoping that somehow it would go unnoticed. Needless to say their are still countless errors and factual inaccuracies on this web page, and everyone can rest assured cause they will be dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:Islamic science. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

expanding Muslim military history task force

I have been reelected coordinator and brought up the old discussion about expanding Muslim military history to the present day. This has been an issue raised by Muslim editors when the task force was founded. It would be great if you could help expanding the articles that present what makes Islams treatment of war effect especially the Muslim warfare. I have been reading a bit on the topic and can help you with advice, but feel myself not confident enough with my limited knowledge. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of science and technology in the Islamic world

Excellent article, but does the title reflect the content? Many of the later entries refer to Muslim scientists who were active (and often born) outside the Islamic world: for example, Pierre Omidyar and Jawed Karim were both born in the West, while Ahmed Zewail, Fazlur Khan, Abdus Salam, etc were all active there.

Also, are you certain that all the entries are Muslim? For example, Jawed Karim's mother was a German woman called Christine, while Lotfi Zadeh is listed online as having a Jewish Russian mother. The problem is that most scientists don't write about their religious views (Abdus Salam being a notable exception). Without sources, even Pierre Omidyar could potentially be a Christian or Zorastrian. Udzu (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the comment to the (more appropriate) article discussion page. Udzu (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Jagged 85. Thank you for your great edits at Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe. I am really glad we now have an informative article on this very important subject. Best regards. PHG (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Source you might find interesting

Hi Jagged:

I was looking up a recent study on medieval astronomy and stumbled across an important series that might interest you. It's Islamic Philosophy Theology, and Science: Texts and Studies, published by Brill and edited by Hans Daiber and, until his death, by David Pingree. Its big (75 volumes in the last 20 years) and the list of topics and authors is impressive; it certainly has details one wouldn't find in such standard sources like the Encyclopedia of Islam or the Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Unfortunately, since the publisher is Brill the prices are prohibitive, but if you have access to a good library, they would be worth looking at. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mathematics Page

Hello Jagged85. I have seen your contributions to the Kerala School page and was hoping that you would be able to help me put in formulas for another page, Puthumana Somayaji, from the reference [2]. ThankyouHijjins (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern scientific method

Hi. I've added some comments to the History of scientific method discussion page. Look over them if you get chance, they are directed towards you. Sorry if I come off sounding rude; this is a late night for me and I'm not at my best tired. Hope you find something to say anyhow. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairuse images

I thought you are a Wikipedian since 2005, knowing most of the rules and guidelines here. First of all, you'll need a non-free use rationale for all the pages the image is shown on (Read Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for further information). Then read this overuse explanation by another user, why we don't put copyrighted images in lists and such: User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. Main characters of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 have their own articles and the images in the article also, no need for you to add images to the list (same idea as discography sections of artists; see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2). --staka (T ・C) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion required

Asalamualikum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Yarmouk The strength of armies at battle of yarmuk is disputed. Early sources mentioned the size to be around 200,000-240,000 which are certainly highly exaggrated. Modern estimates are as follows:

• History of palestine, by Gil and Broido (1997): 100,000.
• Donner (1981): 100,000.
• David Chandler: 100,000
• Kennedy (2006, p. 145): 80,000.
• Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. 80,000
• David nicolle, Yarmouk 636. 50,000
• Kindersley, 80,000
• Andre Corvisier 80,000
• Yarmouk university, department of history, jordan. says; 125,000
• Agha Ibrahim Akram: 150,000
• M. Athar Zaidi (Expansion of Islam, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University Dehli): 100,000-120,000
• Ibn Rais ( Rise of Caliphate from BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY, department of history, Turkey.): 100,000

Looking at the lower ends, most of the sources places numbers to be around 80,000-100,000. Now what the dispute is, it is that User:Wiki1609 insist that the army size should be placed to be 20,000-25,000 claiming that Kegri and Haldon mentioned this size in there book for byzantine army at yarmuk. Though i have showed upon him that this size was for the muslim armies not for the byzaitne army and they just simply avoided stating any size for byzantine arm,y clearly and thus mentioned that "byzantine outnumbered arabs".... he still insist that leaving all historians behind these two must be preffered over all ! Now third party is invited and it wants a opinion of other users, you are invited to express your views. It must be noted that 5 byzantine expedition armies were sent by heraculis to rollback syria with there won different objects, the retreat of muslim armies with out fight, from all over syria to yarmuk, forced those 5 armies to gather near yarmuk and thus battle of yarmuk was fought. The size of usuall byzantine expedition force use to be 15,000-30,000 in that era. Regards. Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Please stop placing Dhalsim in anime or manga-related categories. That's twice you've done so [3] [4]. Point being, he is a video game character, hence, he came from a video game. Also, we don't categorize characters by their appearances in other media, or else it would be overcategorization. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Gunpowder

Roger Bacon had written about gunpowder by 1267, and possibly as early as 1248. Hasan al-Rammah did not write about gunpowder until 1270.

The suddenness with which gunpowder appears in both European and Islamic sources, as well as its appearance in European sources slightly before Islamic ones, is one of the reasons that scholars such as Iqtidar Alam Khan argue that gunpowder was transmitted to Europe and the Islamic world as a result of the Mongol invasions.

As for when the Arabs first began purifying saltpeter, it is a considerable digression (as well as an infringement of undue weight) to go into such detail, especially when the only source cited is Ahmad al-Hassan's website.

JFD (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, saltpetre was well-known to pre-Islamic alchemists as was its uses, means of acquisition and purification. The stuff can be found in lumps in dung heaps! Frotz (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you reverted without addressing the concerns I brought up, namely, whether it infringes due weight to delve in such detail into al-Hassan's arguments about when the Arabs first purified saltpeter in the gunpowder/history of gunpowder articles, and the appropriateness of relying exclusively on his personal webpage as your source for such statements.

JFD (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your most recent wording ("Though potassium nitrate was earlier known to Arabic chemists, the Islamic world did not acquire knowledge of gunpowder until the 13th century") still contradicts what even al-Hassan himself acknowledges is "the general notion that saltpetre was not known till the thirteenth century in Arabic alchemy and chemistry".

This is why the dating of Arabic knowledge of saltpeter belongs on the saltpeter page, not on the gunpowder page.

JFD (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Though al-Rammah attributes his work to his "forefathers", we have no Arabic reference to gunpowder that can clearly be said to precede him, and Chase is quite unambiguous that Arab knowledge of gunpowder dates to the mid-13th century.

And, again, your sole source for this is al-Hassan's personal webpage. JFD (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

About al-Hassan: leaving aside the issues of both the reliability of his personal webpage and undue weight given to this discussion of saltpeter, even al-Hassan acknowledges that the prevailing academic consensus is that the Arabs learned of saltpeter in the 13th century: "The general notion that saltpetre was not known till the thirteenth century in Arabic alchemy and chemistry is reflected in other works on the history of chemistry." JFD (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to verify that Hasan al-Rammah's description of a torpedo is in fact the first, and am having difficulty finding your source (The Turks, edited by H.C. Guzel) on either Google Books or Amazon. Can you supply more information please?

I would also like to thank you for taking into account my concerns about depicting Ahmad Hassan's contrarian view on the dating of Arabic knowledge of saltpeter as if it were the mainstream consensus.

However, I still have reservations about citing Hassan's personal website. Remember, "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources".

JFD (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear.

Jagged 85, please tell me that you consulted the actual book—which I cannot find at either Google Books or Amazon—and not some PDF you found at muslimheritage.com.

JFD (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jagged 85,

I just double-checked the al-Hassan website citations and made a troubling discovery.

Wikipedia	al-Hassan
Hasan al-Rammah's Al-furusiyyah wa al-manasib al-harbiyya (The Book of Military Horsemanship and Ingenious War Devices), written in the 1270s, includes the first gunpowder recipes to approach the ideal composition for explosive gunpowder used in modern times	It is reported by Hall that most authorities regard 75 percent potassium nitrate, 10 percent sulphur, and 15 percent carbon to be the best recipe. Al-Rammah’s median composition for 17 rockets is 75 nitrates, 9.06 sulphur and 15.94 carbon which is almost identical with the reported best recipe.
Explosive hand cannons were first used by the Mamluks to repel the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260.	We have seen above that portable cannon were used by the Mamluks in 1260 in the battle of `Ayn Jalut.

You identify these as "firsts" yet I cannot find where al-Hassan does likewise.
JFD (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Poorly-researched material

Please do not add poorly-researched material to Wikipedia. I am in the process of removing dubious statements from Inventions in the Islamic world. Your addition of demonstrably false statements is not helpful. Frotz (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Avicennism

Salam Alaykum,

Dear Jagged, I've nominated Avicennism as a good article, while I know it hasn't reached to GA criteria. I want to make the issue active again. Can you please take a look at the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi bro, nice to meet you again. I eager to see your great works since January.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you find Nicholas Rescher's articles such as[5]

• Studies in the History of Arabic Logic. Pittsburgh (University of Pittsburgh Press), 1963
• The Development of Arabic Logic. Pittsburgh (University of Pittsburgh Press), 1964.

--Seyyed(t-c) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Before and After Avicenna: Proceedings of the First Conference
• Interpreting Avicenna: Science and Philosophy in Medieval Islam
• Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman

Inventions and stupid mistake

Thanks for quickly correcting my stupid mistake of putting my name in an article. And thanks for looking for the sort of citations that I'm looking for too. About asbestos cloth, I think it's most certain that it was used as fireproof clothing at some time, but its extreme expense tended to prevent such use. Furthermore, warfare back then didn't really call for such measures. Frotz (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Idrisi

Hi, if it wasn't for the improvements you've since made to this article, I'd delete the whole of the new material as a copyright violation by the preceding editor. Please see Talk:Muhammad al-Idrisi#Copyright violation. I hope you'll be able to return and make the text more different from the original version at pages 13 to 15 of http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/Sicily1.pdf. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now deleted that section despite your improvements, but thanks anyway for improving it in good faith. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha, you came back. Good work! By the way, you might want to do a mid-year archive on this talk page - it takes a while to load. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

People known as the father or mother of something

I notice from the article history that you have been a major contributor to People known as the father or mother of something. You may be interested to know that it is up for deletion, and your views on it would be appreciated. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR Trigonometric functions

Trigonometric functions has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mulla Sadra's ontological arguments

Salam Alaykum, Can you please summarize Mulla Sadra's quotation--Seyyed(t-c) 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What a Brilliant Idea!

		The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I impressed by your nice work in Humorism. You've made the best idea to represent the issue.[6] Seyyed(t-c) 02:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansion (Experimental physics)

Gives a good overview of the topic.

Also, if you could drop by WikiProject Physics's Projects of the Week, that would be much appreciated. I'm currently building the process of systematic improved of physics articles and a sort of "reviewing cheatsheet" that sort of lists every sort of problem an article could have to guide the process of article-writing. You're a long-time editor, so you can offer the perspective I lack. Link is in my sig. Headbomb {^{— The greatest sin is willful ignorance.}
_{— ταλκ / κοντριβς/Projects of the Week} 19:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

conervation of mass???

what am not understanding here is why jagged 85 listed the conservation of mass in thermodynamics. First of all Tusi didn't develop the concpet of conservation of mass but merely stated some early ideas on it, but thats a whole other topic. The conservation of matter has nothing to do with thermodynamics, since its not mass that cannot be destroyed but mearly that energy is always conserved. Which leads me to think that jagged is implying that somehow this relates to conservation of energy, which it doesnt, it would be like saying people that studied light were also somehow studying and aware of electromagnetism which they were not since that required a much more deeper understanding. Further more the idea of energy and mass being related was only discovered in the 20th century by Einstein with E = mc2, and the advent of quantum mechanics. Up until that point people, even with the creation of thermodynamics in the 1800, discovery of conservation of energy, and proper ideas on energy and heat, no one made the connection that matter and energy were related. One of the truimphs of 20th century physics is the realization that the 2 are connected. What makes this inclusion even more suprising is that not only is the ideas of Tusi very vague there was absolutely no ideas on energy and heat in the islamic world for starters, and how that would in any shape or form realted to matter, since even islamic ideas on matter were philisophical and incorrect not to mention the total absence of ideas on energy. This pretty much even destroys the idea that this is even somehow a pre-thermodynamic idea, which influenced the advent of thermodynamics. Lavoisier, himself after actually discovering the conservation mass made absolutely no connection between the conservation of energy and mass and for that matter no one did until the 20th century. Notice jagged how in the timeline of thermodynamics before your ridiculous inclusion, the conservation of mass is not included in the original time line, thats because it has nothing to do with the conservation of energy and no such connection were made, in fact they were outright rejected not to mention no ideas on energy even existed in the islamic world. Look up conservation of energy page there is nothing there listed about conservation of mass or even how the idea influenced the conservation of energy, since the connection was not made, rejected even with the advent of thermodynamics. Same thing goes for the conservation of mass page, there no listing their of it playing a role in influencing the idea of conservation energy because that required a much more deeper understanding, which how tusi could have even influenced the topic since neither he nor anyone else during the middle ages had the faintest clue about energy or even philosophical ideas on the topic. so why did you list on this time line here, honestly you give knew meaning to the word spin doctor cause you just take things and you spin them to no end. So what this all mean, it means thats gonna be deleted from the list, since the original authors of the page clearly realized what i just stated that knowing conservation of mass does not mean you somehow know about conservation of energy or even influenced it. The law of conservation of mass was never an imputes for discovering conservation of energy, since energy was just a fuzzy concept during early modern period and none existent before that. All i have to say is why? What does the law of conservation of mass have to do with thermodynamics, and specifically what does this vague concept of Tusi have to do with, cause last time i checked you dont study the law of conservation of mass in thermodynamics. Please, thrill us with your acumen jagged

Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

not much, if your insinuating that is also pointless i totaly agree, and i have posted that on the thermo. page, but that still doesnt answer my question, what relevance does some vague concept of conservation of mass and for that matter conservation of mass have to do with thermodynamics? Also you mentioned that Avicenna invented the first air thermometer, but thats not quiet the whole story. Ctesibius, Heron, and Philo were all aware of the elasticity of air and they knew that when heated it expanded and vice versa and they in fact built several mechanisms demonstrating this principle, particularly in Heron's Pneumatica. In reality Avic. would have had access and knowledge of these works so he in fact just used their theroies and the devices they built to measre temperature and some sources claim in fact that they did built an air thermometer themselves http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/science-invention/who-invented-thermometer. whether they built an air thermometer is in no doubt, its just that they most likely didnt use to measure temperature, but never the less their ideas and inventions are crucial Avic. just used what they made to gauge temp. difference. I thought id let you know so you alter to include those ideas, you know before i actually do it for you soooooo. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ya check when i posted that comment, and you haven't changed anything, both the sources you list under the air thermometer are brutally inappropriate, Briffault one having something along the lines, some say he used an air thermometer, and the other source witting one sentence on it. The problem being neither book is source is about the history of science. give me a source that explains his thermometer, how it worked, and how he built it. I like your little contribution of principle parameter, it would be pretty hard for it to be that since it could not tell the temperature, only hotness or coldness of air, which are totally subjective., since temp. scales didn't exist at the time, also it would have been subject to barometric pressure and evaporation and was extremely inaccurate at that. what compounds this even further, as stated before neither of your sources claim how it was built, how it worked, or anything to do about this device, except a sentence, i guess you thought you'd fill in the gaps huhhh. As far as measuring air temp. a rudimentary device was built by philo http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=qfmS7g4JzjwC&dq=Principles+and+Methods+of+Temperature+Measurement&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=3rLkeqdZz5&sig=tV2YrszNevkr61Eatbrk0YDiB4A&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result. of course avic. had access to these works also. Last, but not least these early devices are not thermometers, but more accurately thermascope's. any comments

as far as your knew contribution, well once again filled with some distortions as usual. Heron also conducted experiments on voids, but of course his don't count right, because as you would have us believe muslims invented experiments, right lol, but that's soon going to be addressed. Ya conducted the first experiments on a void, really were does it say that in the Stanford source specifically, as far as the other source Zahoor thats just a plain joke, kind of like you. Last but not least, this contribution is absolutely worthless to the history of thermodynamics. Why, simple show me the connection between this and thermodynamics, list one source that links this as being important to thermodynamics. Ideas on voids were just ideas, based on Greek philosophy. all the early ref. on this page are just precursor ideas to thermo., ideas like voids or atomic philosophy, not thermo. itself. what makes this contribution even more worthless is the fact he conducted "experiment", and i use the word loosely not experiments, he used them to demonstrate something totally untrue, vaccum's can exist!!!. This would be analogous Volta failing to make the first battery and then showing that his failed experiments proved that a device that harnesses electricity cannot be made, that would be contribution???, if anything thats actually a hindrance. Ahhh what a monumental contribution he used water plungers to prove the exact opposite of what is true. You've really outdone yourself here jagged lol. So pretty much this little bit is gone unless you can find some respectable source linking this to thermodynamics.

You also listed this little duzy "The transition from alchemy to chemistry began during the Middle Ages, with the introduction of an experimental scientific method by Geber,[8][9] and scientific refutations of alchemy by other Arabic chemists such as Alkindus,[10] Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī,[11] Avicenna[12] and Ibn Khaldun." Firstly, the transition occurred in the 17th century, name some respectable sources that make that claim, and respectable jagged is one dealing with the history of chemistry and science not books that,although valid sources, are not about science and making glancing acknowledgments about it, you seem to have a problem with(i.e. Briffault source on the air thermometer). Secondly show me how any of them actually contributed to thermodynamics, listed respectable sources. The info. you listed here is important to chemistry not thermo.. Thermo. is part of physics and i ask again listed each of their specific contributions to thermodynamics, with respectable sources backing it up. Even if one runs with the idea that chemistry diverged from alchemy in the middle ages, which is of course not true, the onus would still be on you to prove what specifics these individuals added to the eventual rise of thermo.. Thermodynamics is a specific branch of physics and isn't open that anything that has to do with chemistry is linked to thermo.. Ideas such latent heat, heat capacity, kinetic molecular theory, gas law, etc these are all in themselves pre-thermodynamic concepts but are mentioned because they played a role in its eventual genesis. So what did these people that you mentioned contribute to these pre-thermo. ideas. Did they form gas law, kinetic theory, law on heat. In fact these ideas are totally absent in chemistry in the middle ages. In fact there was no ideas on energy either side from incorrect philosophy borrowed from the Greeks. your logic for listing this just plain flawed and its something comparable to one writing on the history of the automobile about the Assyrian invention of the wheel. Ya a wheel is used in a car just like many other components but it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the invention of the car. The comparison is made for this reason, ya things like thermometers. and methods of chemistry are used in thermo., like other sciences but its doesn't mean their contributions to the science of thermo. those methods are also used in quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism, relativity etc does that mean they also made a contribution to those fields as well, no, clearly not. This is some really sad logic jagged. If you wanna list any of the worthless claims you made here you'r gonna require respectable sources that say this individual did such and such and this is how it contributed to thermodynamics, not spinning, which of course you do to no end. I don't care about you interpretation, find me a respectable source that links this to thermodynamics, quote one for me please, am dying to know. Am now also making changes to the thermometer part as well, since you wont, and you better start looking for better sources on this device cause this ain't cutting it sorry

Also if i were you i would start fixing the rubbish bin you have created on mechanics, i ve tracked almost all of your sources down, anyways i suggest you make the changes yourself, and you know what am talking about, before i post my response with quotations from the sources you used and utterly humiliate you.

You just seem intent on dogging the issues here aren't you. First thing is first,Al-Farabi, didn't conduct experiments, he conducted one and his experiments have no relevance. As i have stated before because it was used to actually prove that something totally wrong so does not mark any progress in science jagged. If you think is such a contribution explain why it is here, and even to do that your gonna require a respectable source saying yes this person did this and here is its relevance, the standford source doesnt say that at all. I ask again what is the relevance. Again with ideas on voids, such as Aristotle's and so forth i do thing they are pointless on this page at least delving into the detail that this page does it in, and am going to addressing that very soon.

Tomasz Prochownik

Actually, I think the Inca or Maya were the first to discover the relation of matter and energy. They considered 'time' to be 'earth'. In fact, the word "time" was "earth". Just a quick reply with no direct evidence. InternetHero (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Avicennism

Salam bro,

There are some sections in Avicennism such as Study of Avicennan philosophy and Metaphysical doctrinewhich don't have reliable sources. Some part of them have been translated from French wikipedia. Can you please help me with it?--Seyyed(t-c) 10:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Week References for Abbas Ibn Firnas Flight

Most of the ref's for 875 CE flight attempt are third hand, and none of the first hand quotes indicate that he soared or was in control of the flight ; furthermore, 'flight controls' are absent on weight shift gliders. The Saudi Armco web article is colourful, but sites no sources: this is not a credible reference.... it actually suggests that the wings were independent and that he flapped them in some precalculated manor to gain altitude! There are lots of STORIES out there to choose from- to make an assertion, we need more than third hand folk tails or fanciful retelling. "Ibn Firnas was a polymath: a physician, a rather bad poet, the first to make glass from stones (quartz), a student of music, and inventor of some sort of metronome." —Lynn Townsend White, Jr"; This quote reflects on the quality of the Townsend reference- which was it: did he devise a way to grind quarts or did he make glass using quarts as an ingredient? Why say he was a 'bad' poet, and not just provide a sample? Why express uncertanty about the nature of the metronome? Townsend's expresses a willingness to employ conjecture. Why do we even need Townsend? Let's have original sources- let's have contemporary references for descriptions of the flight and the mechanism employed. Without such, we are at risk of propagating what has developed into a folk legend. I am inclined to edit the article to reflect what can be demonstrated, not construed; for example: I have witnessed several hang glider pilots launch, fly away, make a steep banked turn, and crash on the exact same spot they launched from -without having controlled any aspect of their flight. However, for me to suggest that this is what occurred would be conjecture. What say you? Mavigogun (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Kindi

Salam Alaykum,

What's your idea about nominating this article as a good article? --Seyyed(t-c) 02:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Obvious Conflict

You could easily anticipate that we would have initial conflict regarding Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi‎, yet you chose to make substantial revisions without attempting to discuss those differences; the point is that we can grow the extent and quality of knowledge via peer review and discussion- this tool doesn't work if we operate as a legion of despots. Truth is a relative state, and I hope to have my perspective challenged and influenced by yours.Mavigogun (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

History of timekeeping devices.

Thanks for helping us with our Euro-Asiatic centricity. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Newlater for Islam wikiproject

Salam brother,

Can we make something like this for our wikiproject?--Seyyed(t-c) 05:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham

Salam brother,

Do you think this article is ready for renomination as a GA article?--Seyyed(t-c) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think both of these article are in complete without using history of Islamic philosophy. Henry Corbin has tried to describe their views in the traditional context. --Seyyed(t-c) 01:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of chemical elements discoveries

Hi, if you find the time, please leave your thoughts to the questions I've posted there. Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

magnetism

what study on magnetism, list the contributions here, what was added to the study of magnetism. Using a compass doesn't mean that you made contributions to magnetism. Muslims became aware of magnetism from the arrival of the compass. hmmmm the greeks were also aware of magnetism around 600 BC from Lodestone and so were the Chinese long before muslims were aware of it. Does it mean they also contributed to study of magnetism. The chinese invented the compass, does that mean they studied magnetism. The first mention of the compass even occurs in Europe before Muslim lands as being used for navigation, does that mean they also contributed to the study of magnetism. The first surviving treaty on magnetism, dealing specifically with the property of magnets was made by Peter of Maricourt, and the first scientific study only occurred under William Gilbert. Just because they used compasses for navigation doesnt mean they contributed to magnetism, since compasses were being used for navigation long ago, yet you dont see anyone witting that medieval European s and Chinese making contributions to the study of magnetism. So i repeat what contributions, and using compasses doesnt count cause compasses were neither invented in by muslims or the first to use them for navigational purposes, both things occurred previously in other societies, yet they are not listed as contributions. Using compasses for astronomical purposes doesnt contribute to magnetism, its just using a device in conjunction with astronomy, doesnt mean the compass or magnets were studied. You say the compass was used with astronomy for navigation oh ya what astronomical concepts and ones that were not taken lock stock and barrel from china and europe??? Once again the Chinese first used compasses with astronomy, using the concept of the the true north, yet thats not listed as a contribution to study magnetism since that would require studying magnets specifically for the purpose of understanding its properties and so forth. I really do love you're pathetic logic jagged, so going to demonstrate another analogy to this dribble that you listed here. People used telescopes to study the stars, which use the property of light, does that mean that anyone that used a telescope or anything magnifying object were studying light as well and contributed to its study, heron built the aeophile does that mean he was studying properties of steam, heat, and thermodynamics. An even better analogy thats fits your twisted logic is like me saying right now, well am using a computer so therefore i am studying computer science and making a contribution to the field, even though i have no idea how it works. The obvious answer to all of these is clearly no. Same principle applies here just because you use a compass for navigation does'nt mean you are studying the properties of magnets or have any intention of doing so. So i ask again what contributions to magnetism, using astronomical concepts in conjunction with a compass were being used by the chinese and europeans long before any mention is made in the islamic world. The whole idea of the compass and astronomical concepts being used for navigation was always used by mariner's that used it to travel. So list what contributions were made to the study of magnets, and knew ideas about astronomy with compasses that are knew and not used by the chinese or europeans. You dont get points for doing and rewriting ideas and methods that were used before by other society's. That is essentially taking credit for others "achievements" and claiming them as your own. Needless to say unless you got some proof here of knew ideas about the properties of magnets, or for that matter the compass and how it relates to astronomy that are original, this aint gonna cut it. This whole things is being moved to the islamic geography section, since you haven't provided anything on this study of magnetism, and compasses, and again they would have to be original,, not things already achieved by others before.

All of your recent posts from magnetism to thermodynamics jagged illustrates that you have truly sunken to knew lows, you've totally run out of knew things to write about, not to mention most of your previous work is shady and you can rest assured the corrections are coming, so you've decided to repackage them into topics such magnetism and thermodynamics, places were they have absolutely no business in. You really are pathetic. Am sorry there is no other real way of explaining this.

Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

More on thermodynamics

Okay so i ask again how is that a contribution to thermodynamics jagged or even pre-thermodynamic ideas. He's gone about to prove something wrong, so this isn't making any progress in the science or the ideas. Another factor that must be made clear is that the vacuum itself plays a very minor role in thermodynamics. Yet you've outlined all these names such Al-Farabi, Leucippus, Hero of Alexandria, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) and the Mu'tazili theologians about their ideas on vacuums. thats giving way to much space to something very tiny, why? simply almost every single philosopher/scientist after Aristotle had ideas on vacuums, does not mean we should list the whole laundry list of names, no clearly not. As i have said before the whole mention on vacuums are only important in so much that Aristotle was the first to mention such a concept and it got others to think about the idea. Other then that the only relevant aspect is Otto von Guericke's invention of the first vacuum. Aristotle is only given mention because he introduced the concept. This same principle applies for atomic philosophy. its not really important to list all the various philosophy's on atoms but only the earliest, why because they're the initial ideas that got others thinking about the subject and its this curiosity that led to correct theories. The same principle applies here. There is no relevance in listing a laundry list of names about voids because almost all philosophers/scientists had ideas on them but they could neither prove or disprove them. As far as Al-Farabi "experiments" he didn't conduct experiments, he conducted one small experiment not experiments that mean more then one. You then list that Otto von Guericke was influenced by him to disapprove him. Really, prove it. List a source that says exactly that, its definitely not the one you listed here and you haven't offered any proof that Otto von Guericke was aware of his work or that it influenced him, you just decided to fill in that part yourself. Lastly, i ask know for the third time, because you have so far continuously decided to dodge the issue, which source claims that this has any relevance what so ever to thermodynamics. Name one, cause it ain't the source you've listed here. This one point demonstrates the problem with many of the things you write about. Neither me or you are scholars in history and even if we were we would still be required to follow what other respectable sources say on the issue. In order for you, for me, and for that matter anyone else witting on this page would require source that claim explicitly what were witting about. It's not up to me or you to make the leap of faith and fill in the blanks. So far your answer on this topic has been something to the effect, well someone listed Aristotle's ideas on voids and well thats trivial, so since someone else has made a trivial point i should be able to make one that is pointless. I ask one more time what respectable source links this to thermodynamics or pre-thermodynamic ideas. So far you dont have one, and because you don't have something backing up your claim your not permitted to list it here. If your so confident on the matter, then you wont have any problems whatsoever finding a source that makes that claim. I repeat for the last time jagged unless you have a source that makes that claim no exceptions will be made for you on scholarly rules for witting on history. i explain to you for the last time why Aristotle is mentioned here, its because he introduced the idea and got others thinking about them and his ideas on voids were accepted by all muslim scholars, including Al-Farabi, read your own source its clearly stated their, and mind you Aristotle's rational for why a vacuum can't exist, which was in its totality accepted by Al-Farabi, are in themselves in incorrect. This then ultimately leads us to this conclusion on l-Farabi experiment: It was based on false premises, couched in Aristotelian philosophy, and led him to make an absolutely incorrect conclusion. There is also a large section here in contributions from the ancient and medieval period. It lists a laundry list of what islamic scientist opinions were on voids. Firstly its totally biased. It goes to great lengths to explain their theories and doesn't mention the fact that most of it was couched in Aristotelian ideas on the matter, and that fact that dozens of other none-islamic thinkers also had ideas on the matter. There is essentially no need to write what others thought. the reason being simple, all the ideas on voids are wrong and it gives way to much weight to something that is totally trivial in the overall development of thermodynamics. thermo. deals with energy and its affects on matter, so witting paragraphs on what various thinkers had to say about voids is pointless, since the whole idea of voids only has merit in so much that it ultimately led someone to actually create a vacuum. It doesn't really matter what people;s ideas on voids were since none of them could prove or disprove it, it was largely philosophical in nature, and all incorrect. what counts is who actually built one, and even them a vacuum is only important because it became useful tool in pre-thermo.. This whole section gives way to much weight to something that clearly doesn't merit it. As stated before pretty much every philosopher/scientists after Aristotle had ideas on voids, should we just list a whole section and what the dozens and dozens of others thought, the obvious answer is no, and that ore appropriate for the vacuum page. This whole section can essentially be shortened to one sentence to something like "from the ancient to medieval periods various ideas existed on voids and whether they were feasible or not." It makes absolutely no sense to list a laundry list of people and their ideas on the topic.

Now am gonna get to them second part of this topic jagged and thats the chemistry issue. Lets just deal with the first part. You claim the transition from alchemy to chemistry and you list several sources. Here's the problem, there all legitimate sources, but not for the topic being discussed. In order to make such claims would require respectable sources that deal exclusively with the history of chemistry and science. Source #6 is not a book about chemistry or science but just makes some acknowledgments to it jagged. Would it be appropriate for me to use that same source to deal with the history of the industrial revolution or calculus, obviously not, because that source doesn't deal with any of topics specifically. Will Durant is not a scholar on the history of chemistry and is not considered an authoritative figure on the issue. The other sources you list have the exact same problems. Source #7 is text book on crystallography, again not on the history of chemistry and not a scholarly work on the matter at hand. You want me to list what my first year university text book says by Zumdhal titled Chemistry, 7th edition, cause it claims chemistry only existed at the onset of the 17th century and Robert Boyle was the first chemist and that everything before that is alchemy. to list that on the subject of chemistry is laughable jagged, its a plain joke. The other 2 source are loosely affiliated with science and once again they dont deal specifically with chemistry and its history. they merely deal with specific individuals. i order to make the claim you are making you would require scholarly sources that deal specifically with the history of chemistry, not just islamic works in that field, but one dealing with the whole topic at hand. Am not going delve deeper into this topic because its something to be more appropriately dealt with in the history of chemistry. So now lets proceed to the heart of the problem with your recent edits on chemistry and thermodynamics. The transition of alchemy to chemistry has nothing to do with thermodynamics jagged, and neither did the original authors of this page intend that. what they've done is used very slippery wording, which of course you have exploited to throw in your ethno/islamic driven agenda. Lets make something very clear here. Thermodynamics is a branch of physics, period. Thermodynamics and its methods and concepts are just used extensively in chemistry, just like quantum mechanics. At its core thermodynamics seeks to deal with effects how energy in its various forms affects the molecular activity of macroscopic objects. Its something quiet broad but also very specific. The only areas of chemistry that have anything at all to do with pre-thermodynamic ideas is essentially thermochemistry, which did not arise until the mid 18th century mostly based on the works of Joseph Black. Now we can clearly deduce that the authors had this in mind because they spent that whole section witting about essentially caloric theory, combustion, so essentially ideas on heat, although the section could use some expanding and am going to do that myself. They clearly didn't spend any time with the chemistry of Antoine Lavoisier, Dalton, etc and other founders of modern chemistry or anyone before that. Why, the answer is quiet simple neither they or anyone else before them contributed to even pre-thermodynamic ideas. They did contribute to chemistry, but this isn't a page dedicated to the history of chemistry. Just as before i ask again what did any of the islamic "chemists" contribute to pre-thermodynamic ideas, please list them here with respectable source explicitly saying this individual did such and such and this is how it contributed to pre-thermo. ideas. The very last part of my response going to deal with how specifically this chemistry section will now be dealt with. Since the wording on this page on the chemistry contributions is slippery and inaccurate and subject to unscrupulous authors such as yourself, who of course are purely driven by ethno/islamic centric agenda with massive douse of insecurity, the title heading is now going to be changed to FROM THERMOCHEMISTRY TO PRE-THERMODYNAMICS. this should essentially solve the problem once and for all. As stated before thermo. is not such a broad field that pretty anything and everything chemistry has somehow contributed to it, it clearly has not, if anything thermodynamics has contributed to chemistry more chemistry has to it.

Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Speed of light

Can you give me some idea of how Alhazen provided experimental proof of the intromission theory of vision please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC

Thanks for your reply. My point was that, without some experimental details, measurement of the speed of light with a camera obscura is not credible.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrational number

At irrational number, you wrote:

During the 14th to 16th centuries, Madhava of Sangamagrama and the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics discovered the infinite Taylor series for some irrational functions such as Pi

What do you mean by "irrational function" and what do you mean by a Taylor series for pi? pi is an irrational number, not a function, and a Taylor series may be a Taylor series for a function, but but what is a Taylor series for a number? Michael Hardy (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Optics

Hi. On this edit I think you copy-pasted from either the microscope or the telescope article. I wrote that and I don't think it's credible for Wikipedia to copy-[aste from other articles. In fact, it is against the rules my friend. Rewrite it and use only the reference from Richard Powers, and it should be fine. Here it is: "[7]". Good luck. InternetHero (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for standard infobox for History of [country] templates

Hi there! You're a member of WikiProject History, so I'm just informing you about a proposal I've made about standardizing History of [country] templates (like Template:History of France). The discussion is located at the talk page for WikiProject History—your comments and criticism are welcome. Thank you. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Geriatrics contribution

Dear Sir i would like to congratulate you on writing about Ibn Sina contributtion to the science of geriatrics. I am an Egyptian geriatrican, i knew about this fact and other facts about the contribution of arabic physicans to geriatrics but i was hesitated to write about this because wikipedia is sometimes biased and obssessed about the arabs. I would like to thank you greatly.--Ashashyou (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I was encouraged to add the following to the geriatrics page: Abu Ali Ibn-Sina Avicenna's The Canon of MedicineAl-Canon scanned photos Also the famous Physician Ibn Al-Jazzar (Algizar) Al-Qayrawani (circa 898-980) wrote a special book on the medicine and health of elderly (Kitab Tibb Al Machayikh)or (Teb Al-Mashaikh wa hefz sehatahom). Also a book on sleep disorders and another one on forgetfulness and how to strengthen memory (Kitab Al Nissian wa Toroq Taqwiati Adhakira) and a Treatise on causes of mortality (Rissala Fi Asbab Al Wafah). Another arabic physician in the 9th century by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (died in 910) wrote a Treatise on Drugs for Forgetfulness (Risalah al-Shafiyah fi adwiyat al-nisyan)--Ashashyou (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know also if you have the article that you used in the referance, and if you could email it to me.--Ashashyou (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in improving the internalinks and all the formatting, butbit was Ishaq ibn Hunayn son of Hunayn ibn Ishaq that wrote the forgetfulness drugs book and not his father, you can see on the wikipedia page on Hunayn ibn ishaq that the internal link to his son on line number 7 is still red indicating that his page have not been formed yet. and abou the link to Age & Aging journal it didnot work perhaps we cannot have access to this journal from Egypt. --Ashashyou (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

partial vacuum and suction pipe

"The first suction pump, a device which sucks fluids into a partial vacuum, was invented in 1206 by the Arabian engineer and inventor, Al-Jazari. The suction pump later appeared in Europe from the 15th century."

-i have deleted this from that page because it contains factually inaccurate material, which is not backed up the sources listed. Neither of your source state that Al-Jazari's suction pumps created partial vacuum. You are correct in saying that a suction pipe can create a partial vacuum, but that just modern suction pumps, and even many modern ones cannot create one. Most importantly neither of your sources make that claim, so there is no reason to believe Al-Jazari's did, you are going to require a respectable source to back that up, you can't just assume because your making the assumption that his suction pipes resembled modern ones. -lastly, the creation of a partial vacuum is not something all entirely knew, they can be created by a syringe without a design alter, follow this link: http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/boylingwater/boylingwater.html. In fact most suction devices can create a partial vacuum. Heron invented the first syringe, follow this link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria#Inventions_and_achievements Your free to list the fact that Al-Jazari invented a suction pipe, but not a partial vacuum since you don't have a source to back that claim up.Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

***update*** i have just consulted some sources on suction pumps, and just as i suspected suction pumps, pistons and other such devices can only create vacuums under certain technical conditions.

QUESTION: how high can these pumps lift water? At least the ones that were constructed Al-Jazari, or how high far did they raise water in his treatise and descriptions. As usual respectable sources only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Temperature and Thermoscope

-i have made edits to the air thermometer section. The simple reason is that Avic. device could not measure temperature. The concept of temperature is actually a fairly recent innovation. The idea of sensible heat has been known since the dawn of the simplest organisms. The idea of temperature as we understand it, that goes beyond sensible heat was first put forward by Galileo. The first formal and scientifically based temp. scale was the Fahrenheit scale and the absolute temp. scale was invented by Lord Kelvin. Before that no way of measuring temp. existed, even Galileo never formulated one. Secondly, Avic. device was a thermoscope, which by its definition can not measure temp, follow link:http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/THERMOSCOPE.

-also the listing that this was the first thermoscope and that Avic. was the first employ it is also not backed up by your sources and not backed up the general context of history, follow this link:http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0953-2048/4/11/040/su911140.pdf?request-id=5e7b8ab2-e39f-41c9-9454-ea09e8198113

-am going to be making contributions to the history of the thermometer page and i have'nt been able to find any info. on Avic. device am counting on you to find one that describes his device, how it worked, and other general info. since you made the posts about it originally, so you should have no problems getting these sources for me.

Also i have said this before but am going to warn you again stop making modern interpretations of past devices, just because a modern version of device can do something it doesnt mean the older ones canTomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

heat as motion

I have also removed the post "he hypothesis that heat is a form of motion was initially proposed in the 13th century, by the medieval Arabic physicist ʻAbd Allah Baydawi" The source you listed for that doesn't make that claim. Baydawi is not a scientist, he's just a theologian and he is making commentary on Aristotelian ideas on heat. All he says is that heat is caused by a change in motion of objects, such as rocks or any other macroscopic object. Lastly, Baydawi, is actually objecting to the idea of "motion-change" causing heat, hence his mention about celestial objects in the paragraph after and why their movement doesn't cause them to gain heat. This is hardly what were talking about when we speak of heat as a form of motion, that is about particle movement caused by heat You just seem hell bent on in cluttering this page with irrelevant and in this case untrue facts don't you. Lastly, jagged the idea that heat is some form of motion is an ancient, for example Hero of Alexandria believed air itself was composed of particles. Jagged you may want to consider reading the actual sources you list instead of just picking out a word here and their. Am gonna make this very clear to you here jagged, cause you really don't seem to get it. Any source you list here i can get my hands on. The games you've been playing up to now stop right here period!Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

nice try jagged, but this doesn't cut. Motion change, okay motion change of what. all you have done is taken the words motion change and immediately assumed motion change of particles, but the funny thing about that is, if that's what he's taking about why hasn't he said sooo. Notice how he says heat may be caused by motion-change of something, not heat itself being motion Heat causes change in the motion of particles not vice versa. Don't you find it a bit odd that he starts talking about motion of planets, why would be be mentioning such a thing if he s talking about motion of particles. In order for you to list that this is related to the motion of particles your gonna require someone to actually say it in those words, not just picking the word motion change and making the leap. i ask ask gain motion change of what? whats he referring to jagged. Find out what he's talking about when he says motion change then you can list it here and have me convinced, not just the word motion change without any real explanation of what that motion change is. For all we know he could be talking about anything, and it looks pretty clear that hes' talking about motion change of macroscopic objects. Lastly, the fact that i cant find a single source to cross-reference this claim just adds to my suspicion. If your right you'll have something to cross-reference this claim. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ya my double-standard is really mind-boggling, every single fact listed on this page can be cross-referenced by dozens of sources, and yours clearly can't. Jagged saying heat is motion change means absolutely nothing, cause heat isn't some motion, and your author is not stating that heat is motion he's implying that it is caused by some sort of motion-change, which immediately begs the question motion change of what? Cause if this guy is talking about planets, rocks, spirits, or god knows what then it definitely doesn't apply here. As far as particles thats not an advanced idea, read articles on Hero, if you want i can direct you to them, he thought air was composed of particles, thats the reasoning he used to explain the elasticity of air. I'll make you a proposition. Any claim made on this page, you can ask me to cross-reference and in return you have to cross-reference this. Since their is an entire book written about this guy, there is absolutely no way you cant find what his ideas on heat are either from other books or journals. Like i said in order for you to list this you have to explain his ideas on heat, am not asking for grand theories, am asking for a response to a simple question. motion-change of what? thats one sentence, the fact that you wish to engage on Ad hominem responses is only compounding my suspicions that this guy isnt speaking nothing of the sort. So am putting this as a temporary removal, once you elaborate this can be put in the appropriate context in this page and included. If he's not talking about particles jagged then the whole idea that heat is the motion of something is totally out to lunch cause heat isn't motion. Like i said am waiting for the answer to this very simple question, your next response jagged, should consist of only one thing, the answer to my question, plus you can ask me to cross-reference any claim on this page i ll be glad to do it for you. Also am trimming the huge swaths of info. you just copy and pasted from the history of heat page cause in the end this page is about thermo. not the history of ideas/mythologies on heat. When you list ideas about a branch of science, you have to list things that are somewhat correct, or in the right direction not mythology, mythology on heat has nothing to do with thermo. and didnt much influence it and is more appropriate for the history of heat were a much broader approach to the subject can be taken, instead of page dealing with the history of a science. Hooke is being removed cause his idea on heat is just plain ridiculous.

Electricity

Hi! The new material about Abbas Ibn Firnas is very interesting, but unless I am missing something, I don't see the link with electricity. Did he produce his artificial lightning with a spark-making machine? I'm guessing that the stars, thunder and clouds were not produced by electricity-related mechanisms, though. Perhaps some of this is better placed in articles relating to Islamic science and engineering, for example? Best regards, — BillC ^talk 01:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, did you get the chance to look into this? — BillC ^talk 22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

Ibn al-Haytham

Hi Jagged 85, I recently came across the article on Ibn al-Haytham, and felt it was of very good quality. I fixed a few little things, and then nominated it for GAN (my first GAN in fact). The reason I'm telling you this is that it appears you have been a significant contributor to that article, so I'm hoping you can spare the time to swing by when it gets reviewed and help out in any way you can. Thanks in advance if you can do that. Oh and also, well done on writing such a great article! To be honest, I don't think it would be too hard to get it up to FA standard, but I think GA will do for now! Deamon138 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I just thought I'd tell you that if you didn't know already, User:Wronkiew has picked up the GA review of Ibn al-Haytham. He hasn't given his thoughts on the article itself yet, but he has made his first comment on the review at Talk:Ibn al-Haytham/GA1, so ways to improve the article will most likely appear there soon. I hope you can help me out with anything he suggests there. Thanks again! Deamon138 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian Muslim?

Are you by any chance an Indian Muslim? Just curious...Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually a British South Asian of mixed descent, proud of the histories of Muslims, including the Iranians, Turkish and European Muslims. I also have am proud of the Muslims worlds history (before and after Islam). I just like celebrating my culture a lot. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Abbas Ibn Firnas

Hey. An editor named, User:Mavigogun changed a section of the article on Abbas Ibn Firnas that I think wasn't very good. I was against it so I reverted it. Anyway, some other editor (who actually wrote it) probably feels the same way so it will be a 3-1 vote if you agree with us two.

P.S. Could you help with your opinion for the telescope article's talk-page? InternetHero (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Common law, islamic influences

I just wanted to say thanks for the contribution, and the way you handled the deletes by ProhibitOnions. I do share a bit of his fear that this may or may not be sound scholarship (I don't know enough to comment or evaluate, so I'm happy with the way it's currently written, attrributing the theory to certain footnoted papers.) I apprecaite the way you retailored the language, and handled the criticism. I think this is turning into a great article. Boundlessly (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)==Wow, thanks==

Hey, thanks a lot for giving your opinion. I wasn't totally sure that you'd agree with me which is why I took so long. Anyway, he (Alhazan)deserves a short mention. I made compromise after compromise with those editors but it wasn't enough... Anyway, in light of keeping the peace: I will keep the same compromise. I short sentence is beneficial to everyones' right to Wikipedia I think. They're opinion counts as well. InternetHero (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you mind just saying something about me here. The users (one is a World of Warcraft player) and the others seemed to have put a lot of effort into this "rfc/U", but they completely take it out of context. Anyway, just read at least half of this page and you'll see why I had to get some admins/canvass. I tried following that flow-chart thing for Dispute Resolution, but I lost my patience in accordance to the clause in respect to seeking an admin. Anyway, this is what I mean. "Forgets" to emphasize that I sought help from 2 admins and didn't lose any courteousy. I you can, just try and give your opinion on me. InternetHero (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything to add? :-)

Hi,

We're discussing what to add in the telescope article. I figured maybe you want to add something. Cheers! InternetHero (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for work

I see that have made major contributions to Islamic related articles, however do have any online sources I could use so I can expand the inventions relating to Islamic civilisation? I also want to work to get them on FA or FA-List as soon as possible. Basically I'm looking for tips on how to wrtie Islamic articles. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 13:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian maritime history

I have recently finished editing this article. If you can find the time then please take a look into it and suggest improvements. I have this nagging feeling that I'm missing something but I can't quite point out what, and would appreciate any input on the talk page of the article. JSR (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I also rewrote Science and technology in the Republic of India. Any suggestions on the talk talk page if/when you find time would be appreciated. JSR (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I also finished rewriting Information Technology in India. If/when you find time then any comments/suggestions on the article talk page would be welcome. Regards, JSR (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Automaton

One of the references on the Automaton article is broken ("no text was provided for refs named Terzioglu"), but I don't know how to fix it, I saw in the history that you are the last person to edit the article so I hope you might be able to help! Thanks - Jimmy Hammers (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Alchemy TF

Hey, I noticed you have created or contributed to an Alchemy related topic. If you're interested, I'm trying to pull together a list of contributors who are interested in Alchemy for a Task Force. Nothing formal yet, just sending out feelers to other editors who are into the topic. If you're interested, let me know on my talk page. --Trippz (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Mu'tah

Hello. I see that you contributed to this article sometime back. I know nothing at all about the topic. A line from the infobox, top right, has recently been removed. Someone knowledgable should take a look to see if that change is reasonable. Thank you. --Hordaland (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Al-Kindi:On Hold

Salam brother

At present Al-Kindi is on hold and I don't have enough time to work on it. Can please improve it to reach GA status.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian media

Make sure to read Indian Media whenever you find time :-) JSR (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:History of timekeeping devices#Escapement.

A bit of discussion about a few of the edits you made, thought you'd like to know. · AndonicO ^Engage. 11:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Some additions

I have been making a draft for rewriting Indian architecture and that has taken up most of my free time but I was curious to find out more about distillation, puppetry, and the scythed chariot. Could you possibly look into these w.r.t. India (and possibly add them if they check out)? I'll try and add/expand myself in a few days time.

Thanks in advance :) JSR (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Electricity

Would you please revise your edit to Electricity to show which article or pages in Encyclopedia Americana contained the information in your post? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

TS Pelican

That was a very interesting about TS Pelican. Regrettably, it doesn't belong in the article on naval trawlers. I suggest you add it somewhere where the history of sailing rigs is being discussed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, it's definitely not the first trawler either. I've re-entered it in a reworded form under Sail#History of sails. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Brahmagupta interpolation formula

Hello. Can you address the question that's been at Talk:Brahmagupta interpolation formula for four months? The "cleanup" tag is still on the article only because of that. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda

I have just finished rewriting Ayurveda using only the most reliable scholarship. Kindly take a look and let me know if you approve. It would also help if you could point out what more needs to be added to the article (except images of course, to which I get to soon). This edit was made using a draft I had prepared earlier and may not be perfect so please be sure to look and recommend.

Thanks in advance, JSR (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit drama and tragedy

Hello Jagged85. I've just undone your edits to the Tragedy page but wanted to offer encouragement and an explanation. The theatre and drama subject-field articles are pretty shoddy in general, so I'm by no means discouraging anyone who is generous enough to add to them. The majority, too, have major problems with the absence of a "world perspective", in line with much of the dramatic criticism and theory of the West before (and during) the 20th century. I think we've talked before a while back, and your contributions on Sanskrit drama are most welcome in my view. They ought to occupy a significant place in the drama, theatre and history of theatre articles. Tragedy, however, is something different. The dramas that you describe may bear structural similarities to tragedy, but they're not tragedies; the rasas you describe may be present/provoked by similar forms of "art based on suffering", but tragedy is more specific than this. Hermann Oldenberg describing the epic as having "tragic force" is part of the standard critical gesture of understanding the entire world's culture through the categories of the West. Epics aren't tragedy; the form is explicitly defined through that distinction (just as Homer's epics aren't tragedy, and, for the same reason, why the Doric Greeks probably didn't invent it). Tragedy isn't an emotional response (that would be, with a little controversy, catharsis for Aristotle), it's a dramatic genre. I would like to make a request and a suggestion: firstly, if you really want to insist that the Sanskrit drama has tragedy as one of its forms, then this argument needs to be properly sourced; secondly, we might consider a section in the tragedy article called something like "Similar forms in world theatre" that describes the relationships, similarities, and differences between the tragic tradition and forms from as many other cultures as we can. Kind regards, DionysosProteus (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I see you've added the two early plays to tragedy, and some other edits to history, drama, etc. Again, though, alarm bells are ringing for me. "Eastern theatre" is a very politically dodgy term, usually associated with Orientalism. And though I won't have the sources to hand to point to for you until next week sometime, the two plays you mention aren't tragedies--it's just that certain (again, politically suspect) Western academics have universalised their own critical terms (like "tragedy") and applied them indiscriminately to non-Western texts, without regard to the history and context from which they come. This is a classically colonialist critical manoeuvre, and I'd be surprised if you wanted to endorse it. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just realised that I do have something. Take a look at Brockett's History of the Theatre, p.615 (9th edition):

"Sanskrit plays are not categorised according to such Western forms as tragedy, comedy, or melodrama."

DionysosProteus (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

I must be missing something completely. Are you suggesting that Leonarda was a [[:Category:Middle Eastern writers]]? I've scanned through the article and missed where he ever left Italy. Perhaps I don't understand how categories are used. If you could unconfuse me here I'd appreciate it. And if you use more complete edit summaries I'd not have been confused? Shenme (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Section headings

Hi Jagged 85. I notice you have been making some extensive edits to history of science articles. I haven't reviewed your edits in any detail, but I notice that your section headings all seem to be in Title Case (every significant word capitalized). The Wikipedia Manual of Style prescribes that all section headings should be in sentence case (only the first letter and proper nouns are capitalized, just as in a normal sentence.) --Srleffler (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe

The article stated is going through a process of GA review. There are a few issues but no major ones. The article is about to pass, but since you are the biggest contributer to the article so far, I thought you could clear up the problems. (Most are to do with references (there are only three more or less).) Hope it goes through, and congradulations if it does! LOTRrules 16:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"In Our Time" on The Arabic Translation Movement

I thought you might be interested, the Arabic Translation Movement was the topic on Melvin Bragg's In Our Time discussion slot on BBC Radio 4 this morning.

The programme is available as a 45 minute download here. Jheald (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Update from JSR

I'll be trying to bring up Indian astronomy to a fully sourced version in the near future (One-two days or sooner. I have a draft ready). If you can find time then please make sure to take a look. Also make sure to read Ayurveda; Its stable and fully sourced now. Regards, JSR (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite done. More work in progress. Have a look :-) JSR (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm encouraged to try and do more. I'll keep spamming you with my updates in the future :-) Best Wishes JSR (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a valid point. I used specific articles within the main compilation mostly (the books cited with page numbers were already there in the article). I have included the pages of an entire article just before the ISBN in the 'References' section. Most of the articles vary only from 2-3 pages (as is mostly the case in an encyclopedia) so I thought I would just cite the article with its page numbers since they were so limited.

Having said that, let me know what you think is ultimately needed. If its ok to keep the citations as is because of the limited page numbers or if I need to put in the page numbers. If individual page numbers are still needed then I can put them in. I still can't use the citation templates because its too complicated but templates probably make things easier and more standardized.

BTW, Thanks for the great template that you created for the article. Template:Indian astronomy looks detailed and informative. Also is a good place for editors like me to try and edit articles one by one and hopefully bring some respectable citations to the some painfully neglected articles.

Best Wishes, JSR (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi

Hi thanks for editing the article. The article could achieve an FA, by more work of copyediting in some sections, and more information from many sources can be found in the talk page of the article. I nearly developed the article myself (hard work!), I would really appreciate if you contribute to the article more if you want to that is. By the way is Chittagonian spoken by the community, over 95% speak Sylheti. Anyways, Thanks! Mohsin (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

more worthless contributions

well its clear ur at it again. Jagged it is a misrepresentation what u just posted. The reference to heat is about wind and other so called "part" in contact with the moon causing heat. That's totally absurd. Heat has nothing to do with that. When heat is mentioned in thermodynamics it has to have relevance to a scientific idea on heat or something remotely true. Not any thing and everything on heat counts. Picking the words heat and movement in a couple of sentences doesn't merit inclusion. It would be like listing that someone said movement and friction of human bowls cause heat and list it here and say hey there talking about heat and movement. Whats even more absurd about this is the source you list clearly puts this in geological perspective and doesn't even make the slightest inclination to somehow relate this to ideas in heat, since this paragraph has nothing to do with heat. Even from geo perspective this is absurd, since last time i checked the north pole is cold for climatic reasons, not winds and parts,what ever the hell that means, in contact with the moon. This is really laughable, did you happen to be drunk when you read that paragraph. Read the whole paragraph u ignoramus. Tell me from that paragraph, movement of what cause heat. lol As far as steam distillation, wow, am not sure were you pulled that out off. please relate that to thermodynamics. even if it was, steam distillation has been around for millennium, listed by the very source you quoted. Ya he invented a refrigerator coil, before a refrigerator was invented???, and this has relevance the thermodynamics, how? The laws of thermodynamics helped scientists invent refrigerator, not vice versa, not to mention none of these sources try to connect this to thermodynamics because anyone with a brain, clearly disqualifying you, realizes that is absurd. Of course this is all driven not by any truth but of course because of ur raging inferiority to the west in science, right. It must drive you mad that all this science, not only its beautfull for its own sake, but for what it has contributed to humanity, which ur underclass of underwhelming scientist played absolutely no role, was all accomplished by the hard work and creative thinking of these westerns. Get it over it buddy, cause i know for you its about spreading as many lies as possible, and of course wiki gives u an opportunity to do that, telling a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth, even if it does for you. Jagged, seriously get a life dude or see a shrink or whatever, cause i think you have serious complex, cause anyone that waists as much time as you do peddling this sh!t has to have something lacking. Anyways buddy, no matter what, even though i dont have time to keep track of what u do all the time, its called having a social life plus i dont have a complex like you, am gonna check mate u so stop wasting ur time. Let me just make this very plain for you. I know ur a shameless propagating idiot, but the only way, the only way ur listing anything about the history of thermodynamics on this page, is gonna come from sources that deal with just that, the history of thermodynamics. cheers lolTomasz Prochownik (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finally revealing your true agenda. I always suspected that you held an ethnocentric (or more specifically Eurocentric) agenda of some kind, because your edits and comments suggest to me that you would probably do anything to uphold this agenda, even if it means removing reliably-sourced material, misreading and misrepresenting what the source actually states, personally attacking your opponents to discourage them from adding anything that opposes your agenda, and resorting to nonsensical polemics that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Seriously, what are you even trying to get at by saying your civilization is the greatest? Do you honestly think I even care? Even if it were, what on Earth does this have to do with the topic at hand? Stop wasting your time trying to read my mind and instead try concentrating on the topic. In the cited source, Biruni never says heat is caused by the moon being in contact with the air, but he clearly states that "it becomes heated in consequence of the movement and friction of the parts in contact." Seriously, how how much clearer can it get? And it's not just me who reverted your edit, but another editor (User:Dicklyon) also reverted your edit. If you honestly believe that we are wrong regarding this issue, then explain why at Talk:Timeline of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and random processes instead of resorting to such preachy nonsensical polemics. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

yes of course my true agenda, it was only matter of time that you resorted to the old euro centrism argument, yet you still cant answer and single thing can you, what does steam distillation, supposed refrigerator coils have to do with thermodynamics, in fact were does it in any of your sources say this has to do with thermodynamics, were does it say that in any source. As for the heat her's the quote

The earth and the water form one globe, surrounded on all sides by air. Then, since much of the air is in contact with the sphere of the moon, it becomes heated in consequence of the movement and friction of the parts in contact. Thus there is produced fire, which surrounds the air, less in amount in the proximity of the poles owing to the slackening of the movement there

thats were my info comes from you fool, its clearly stated right their, learn how to read agenda driven distorter. The very sentence at the beginning states that the earth and water from one globe that are surrounded by air. That air is in contact with the moon, the air becomes heated because of its movement and friction in contact with the moon. You must have a serious problem understanding the english language if cant understand that. These ideas have nothing to do with heat as motion or even resemble anything that has to do with heat from a thermodynamic consideration. Like i said its not even implied by the source. As for the other argument, as stated before your not listing things on the history of thermo. unless it comes from sources that deal with that topic. Using books on aroma therapy having nothing to do with it. The points you try to insert on this page just get more absurd every time. Your responses consist of pure ad homenim responses. You cant actually refute what am saying because its clear its true, its clear none of your sources have anything to so with thermo., they don't even try to make the connection, and most importantly you totally twist and turn them to suit what you want them to mean. Of course am driven by an agenda, of course cause am the one that posting inaccurate claims, am the one making posts on a topic that has to do with the history of science but using books an aromatherapy and then using to imply things that even those very sources dont make the connection to. Jagged for once in your in ur life try defending ur arguments, not responding with responses that divert away from the issue.whether Dycklion reverts matters for little since this is'nt a page what certain people think about a topic but whats actually true. What a saying is refutable anyone that knows anything about thermodynamics knows that. Before you make the worthless contributions that you make you should actually read a book on the history of thermodynamics, so you can see what's actually important, and their are plenty of books on the topic. Not going on the thermo. page and seeing hey theirs sentence on heat and movement, let me just see look for a sentences in Islamic sources with the word heat and movement within 3-4 sentences and irrespective if their context and post them here. Or wow ideas on a vacuum, well lets just see what the Islamic sources say on that and digress into paragraphs about on this page and call it a contribution, when does things have little do with contributions or even influences. You wanna know about the history of thermodynamics, here;s the title of a book on the topic, A History of Thermodynamics: The Doctrine of Energy and Entropy Read that and tell me if that book makes any of the points your making or if it even discuss the things that u seem content at spending paragraphs on. The short answer is no, but find out for yourself. These idiot posts are deleted again. And jagged when the hell did i say my civilization is the greatest, how do you even know what civilization i am from, you know which civilization am from its called the human civilization, and in that civilization is based on diverse contributions from many parts, with varying parts contributing to varying aspects of it. And of course its matter of fact that certain parts contribute the certain aspects disproportionately then others. The fact is thermo. has its genesis in the west and was totally developed their just as quantum mechanics or relativity were, that not euro-centrism or any centrism for that matter, its just a matter of fact, a fact you just cant swallow jagged, because it makes you feel, and as a by product ur civilization feel worthless. So you come on wiki and you make a bunch distorted claims and lies and hope it passes for legit. Admit it jagged, you know the claims ur posting have nothing to so with thermo. you pretty much admit it when you debate me, so in turn resort to using loopholes on this page, such as ideas on vacuums and heat. Jagged look up the history of thermo. ideas on vacuums or messed up ideas on heat have nothing to do with thermo. thermodynamics is a science and its history of that of science not wild untrue philosophical ideas which you just beat like a dead horse. As far as personnel attacks jagged its very hard to control those when one is dealing with someone like you, who just seems hell bent and will go to any extreme to lie. Before you make any edits again jagged you should try responding to the points am making not just reverting edits and then saying well hey someone else reverted it to, cause two wrong don't make a right and telling a lie over and over, irrespective of how many people repeat or support it, doesn't make it the truth. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tomasz, I am still not convinced by your interpretation of the quote. From what I see, it looks like the quote is saying that it became heated as a consequence of the movement and friction between the air and the sphere of the moon, and that there is less fire near the poles due to the slackening of the movements there. If you honestly feel that I'm the one misinterpreting the quote, then explain more clearly what the quote is supposed to mean based on your own interpretation instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. The explanation of heat given by Biruni may not be accurate by today's standards, but it's certainly more accurate than the ancient explanations given on this page, and therefore more relevant. As for the refrigerated coil, I added it as an entry in relation to the topic of heat in general. Also, I used a chemistry book as a reference for it as well, not just aromatherapy books. I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be included in the timeline in relation to the prehistory of thermodynamics, since this article could really do with an expansion, but it doesn't really make a difference to me whether it stays or goes. However, the Biruni statement is staying for reasons I've already given, unless you can convince otherwise. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion section of Turkey

• Please vote at the Religion (2) section of Talk Page of the article Turkey, viewing Version 1 (my re-edited version for a neutral prospective) and Version 2, and decide which is the preferred version for the Religion section of Turkey at the below of the page, Agree or Disagree for Version 1, Thank you!!! Mohsin (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Jagged 85/Archive 4, thank you for your contributions on articles related to Feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Feminism Task Force, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with gender studies related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the Feminism Task Force page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks!

--Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for imput

Hello, Jagged 85. I've noticed you are interested in the Middle East, specifically its military history. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide imput regarding the history section of The Middle East. Regards, Master&Expert (Talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

1001 nights

I am really very impressed with most of the matter you have added to this article. I have reservations about a couple of things, ("satire" and "parody") which I have edited, trying to preseve your basic points - while putting them into context (like the nights is a collection, and a pretty amorphous one at that!! - and if we're going to use words like satire and parody they must be used in the proper academic sense). By all means get back to me if you think I have been abtuse or unfair, or if I have somehow missed the point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Update from JSR

I have been trying to bring up mining in India to a fully sourced version and have made some progress. Make sure to take a look whenever you find time :-) JSR 0562 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you look up some sources on history of mining in India? I have one source and I've used it though I will be using more of the same article for detail. Given your experience with history of science articles I thought it best to bring it to your attention.

Thanks in advance! JSR 0562 16:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Telescope

I seen the history and you seemed to have an interest in the telescope article. There are currently some editors trying to revert a strong consensus made months earlier. You might want to check it out. InternetHero (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Taqī al-Dīn and History of the telescope

Taqī al-Dīn as a telescope inventor seems to only have one source (and that one thinks it is "confusing" as to what he was describing) and does not appear in the general academic discourse on the history of telescopes. I have therfor moved Taqī al-Dīn down to external links so readers can simple read the source and since he seems not to be note worthy re:WP:SOURCES "Tiny-minority" views. There is talk opened on this at Talk:History of the telescope#News about who invented it?. Could you please leave comment there instead of continually re-adding material that is questionable? Thanks Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you made a whole series of edits to articles such as this[8] along the lines that Taqi al-Din invented an early rudimentary telescope in the 1570s, and implying that he may have made later astronomical observations with it, and sometimes embellishing your edit with an image of Galileo's telescope. The source - muslimheritage.com - Taqi al-Din ibn Ma‘ruf and the Science of Optics: The Nature of Light and the Mechanism of Vision by Dr. Hüseyin Gazi Topdemir - does not draw any of these conclusions and even raises doubts as to what Taqi al-Din was even talking about. To state that Taqi al-Din actually "invented a telescope" is false statement not supported by the reference cited, and talking about astronomical observations and embellishing it with an un-related Galileo telescope image is getting close to POV pushing. I have cleaned up most of these edits, I would suggest that you check the wording in others that I may have missed, keeping in mind Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Update from JSR

• I will be expanding the Cartography of India article since I have an article by Joseph E. Schwartzberg (published by Springer Science+Business Media). Please make sure to take a look whenever you find time.
• Rewritten the Indian Antarctic Program article and plan to further expand it. Please make sure to take a look whenever you find time.

With Best Wishes, JSR 0562 13:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

War rape

good work with the world war two section! ta --SasiSasi (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First concrete tube structures

Jagged 85 - In Fazlur Khan, you added the text:

The last major buildings constructed by Khan were the One Magnificent Mile and Onterie Center in Chicago. In contrast to his earlier buildings which were mainly steel, his last two buildings were concrete. These were thus the first concrete buildings to employ his bundled tube and trussed tube system designs.[3]

Giving [9] as a source. I don't think the source supports the claim that these were the first concrete buildings to employ the bundled tube and trussed tube system designs. Can you point me at a specific quote which supports this please? Thanks - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Iran goat animation

It appears that the image is a copyvio, taken from [10]. I have tagged it so. There is another, true representation, added a ref to that in the animation article. Greetings, Janke | Talk 08:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• You removed the ref to the blog saying "blogs are not considered reliable sources". A blog by a professional can certainly be reliable. As an animator myself, I concur with the statements on that blog. We would need a more reliable source than the obviously biased original article (with a clearly faked video!) that the goat could have been seen in motion way back then. A series of pictures is not animation until seen in motion. --Janke | Talk 14:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Message from JSR

Most recently I have rewritten ISRO, Vainu Bappu, and History of measurement systems in India articles. You are invited to take take a look!

JSR 0562 19:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)