From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Bilgeis, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains ( talk) 21:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The lead section

The lead section is an essential summary of an article, located above the first heading.

In the source text (the text in the edit window), a heading looks like this:

== This is a heading ==

The lead section is a very important part of every article. The length should correspond to the overall length of the article: an article of 50,000 characters might well have a three paragraph lead, while one of 15,000 or less should limit itself to one or two paragraphs. The text should give a good overview of the article, but it should also get the reader hooked and interested in learning more. Take a look at some featured articles for inspiration.

It is often a good idea to align a representative image with the lead by placing [[File:Filename.jpg|thumb|caption]] just before the first heading. (Filename is the name of the desired file and caption is a description of the image).

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{ totd}}

The article Rasizade's algorithm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability. There are no other occurrences of "Rasizade's algorithm" on the web, that I could find. I have a suspicion that algorithm is an imperfect translation of the original language of this paper; that's why I cannot find it.
This is a fine piece of writing, well referenced, and probably got its author an A. Nonetheless, it constitutes original research. Either that, or its plagiarized from its original author. In either case, that's disqualifying.
Most of the references are printed books. That's not disqualifying; I just don't have access. The others are all on the other side of a paywall though.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow ( talk) 22:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Nomination of Oil boom and bust cycles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oil boom and bust cycles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil boom and bust cycles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC) reply

* I have addressed the concerns expressed in the deletion request in several ways: 1) Renamed (moved) the article. The new title more accurately reflects the essence of the article; 2) It describes a fundamental economic model and is a compendium of all scholarly work published in the field of 
rentier states; 3) This is not and cannot be a research article, as a scholarly research looks absolutely different, but an encyclopedic summary of all scholarship done in this field by leading researchers. It is enough to take a look at similar Wikipedia articles in the field of economic models and compare with mine; 4) I have re-edited the article accordingly to comply with the new title; 5) If the nominator suspects me of plagiarism, he has to prove it with citations. = 
Bilgeis (
talk) 
16:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Bilgeis, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains ( talk) 21:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The lead section

The lead section is an essential summary of an article, located above the first heading.

In the source text (the text in the edit window), a heading looks like this:

== This is a heading ==

The lead section is a very important part of every article. The length should correspond to the overall length of the article: an article of 50,000 characters might well have a three paragraph lead, while one of 15,000 or less should limit itself to one or two paragraphs. The text should give a good overview of the article, but it should also get the reader hooked and interested in learning more. Take a look at some featured articles for inspiration.

It is often a good idea to align a representative image with the lead by placing [[File:Filename.jpg|thumb|caption]] just before the first heading. (Filename is the name of the desired file and caption is a description of the image).

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{ totd}}

The article Rasizade's algorithm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability. There are no other occurrences of "Rasizade's algorithm" on the web, that I could find. I have a suspicion that algorithm is an imperfect translation of the original language of this paper; that's why I cannot find it.
This is a fine piece of writing, well referenced, and probably got its author an A. Nonetheless, it constitutes original research. Either that, or its plagiarized from its original author. In either case, that's disqualifying.
Most of the references are printed books. That's not disqualifying; I just don't have access. The others are all on the other side of a paywall though.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow ( talk) 22:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Nomination of Oil boom and bust cycles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oil boom and bust cycles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil boom and bust cycles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 16:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC) reply

* I have addressed the concerns expressed in the deletion request in several ways: 1) Renamed (moved) the article. The new title more accurately reflects the essence of the article; 2) It describes a fundamental economic model and is a compendium of all scholarly work published in the field of 
rentier states; 3) This is not and cannot be a research article, as a scholarly research looks absolutely different, but an encyclopedic summary of all scholarship done in this field by leading researchers. It is enough to take a look at similar Wikipedia articles in the field of economic models and compare with mine; 4) I have re-edited the article accordingly to comply with the new title; 5) If the nominator suspects me of plagiarism, he has to prove it with citations. = 
Bilgeis (
talk) 
16:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook