Adam M. Gadomski

An example of human factor: /Archive 2006 User:Adam M. Gadomski

Human factor: Rubin's and "Xyzzyplugh" Problem

An example of what you should not be doing: Creating articles in the main name space which are redacted archives of your talk page. Please move Archive-Gadomski to a subpage of your talk page AT ONCE. I'd do it, except that I don't know where you want want it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, per Wikification of suggestion you made on my talk page. (Assuming, for some reason, you are presently unable to log in.)

In regard the organization where you work, I suggest that you look for links to its web page and remove them when they are not appropriate. I've cleaned out a few obviously inappropriate links, but you would know better than I the content of the links, and whether they are relevant to that article or possibly a different article. You can find the links by using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.casaccia.enea.it; there are no longer dozens (implying three or more dozens), but there are over 24. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Sorry, but it is not my problem. I did not seen " obviously inappropriate links", some of them are from my user page, not from the articles(?)

- By the way, there is an observable not neglected correlation between your comments and actions of an anonymous "universal expert" | contribs)(?) Xyzzyplugh (with enormous activity). -I have no time to correct his/her last "modifications", may be could you do it?

Thank you in advance.

--Adam M. Gadomski 13:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)-

---

General reflection

From the socio-cognitive perspective, for the psychological equilibrium, every person needs to have a minimal space/domain under own control. It can be related to sc.research, sport, art, and internet navigation. The most important factor is that "its state depends on him/her".

Unfortunately, in the physical and social competitive world with complex rules, there is difficult to conquest and maintain such space. Therefore many people search domains where is possible to govern and win with simple rules adequate to their, frequently specific capacities. For example, such domain can be Wikipedia editing especially if the "play" is against selected persons. In order to be the winner, sufficient necessary attribute is to have more time.

Of course, any discussion which such personalities is more than difficult.

--Adam M. Gadomski 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I suppose you are right. --Overix 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense to someone. However, the only relevant point to Wikipedia editing is Adam's attempt to control the viewpoint by introducing TOGA concepts into articles in which such concepts are not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe somebody should write an article for Wikipedia about the TOGA meta-theory(?) - It seems to be not trivial task, I think.

--Overix 00:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The question seems to be reliable sources (the only source seems to be Adam's work, and no publication of such has yet been referenced), rather than whether a good article could be written. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to your personal website

As you've clearly noticed, I've been removing the links to your website in a number of articles. I suggest looking at Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it".

Going about adding links to your own website in dozens of articles is simply not considered acceptable here, this is considered to be spamming. In addition, writing about your own personal TOGA theory is also not considered acceptable, due to the fact that anything in a wikipedia article is supposed to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". The TOGA theory would need to have been published by some magazine, newspaper, etc., to be mentioned anywhere in wikipedia.

And even if/when this is done, it still will not be considered acceptable for you to go about finding ways to talk about your own personal theory in dozens of wikipedia articles, unless and until this theory becomes so mainstream and well known that it actually does warrant mentioning all over the place. As of now it is an extremely obscure theory, and apparently an unpublished one, so it doesn't belong in wikipedia. --Xyzzyplugh 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

- Unfortunately, anonymous theories do not exist. Obscurity is a very subjective concept. In my opinion the TOGA meta-theory is a meta-knowledge and has sufficient number of references on the Web. I do not need "spams".

In particular, the reference examples I will add later.

- No more comments.--Adam M. Gadomski 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For entertainment yet

Some citations of Xyzzyplugh from the page User_talk:Arthur_Rubin:

• I also removed content from the body of articles,
• which was to his own obscure personal theory,
• I removed quotes from him, and I removed links to google searches ... designed so that his website would come up high on the list of hits.( very easy !,?)
• Neither he nor his website are reliable sources,
• what to me is incomprehensible babble.
• ...he waited until I had forgotten about him

and finally

• I'm not an expert on any of the topics these articles relate to.

- No comments - --Adam M. Gadomski 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

---

For what it's worth, your sites are incomprehensible babble. I contacted some real experts in systems theory (and metatheory), and they agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC) - I did not see before this neurotic "incomprehensible babble" and the citation of "some real experts" - I think, serious comments are not need.--Adam M. Gadomski (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Complex systems

Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call for Deletion for the associated Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, OK. --Adam M. Gadomski 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

Hi, Prof. Gadomski, every reference to any your article/publication/web page is considered permanently as a spam by some Wikipedists (not experts). What do you think about it ? - By the way, in my opinion if a reference is removed then a part of article related to it has to be removed too. Happy New Year 2009. --Overix (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not every reference. Only those which are not significant in the context of the article. That would leave about 2. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

..."Only those which are not significant in the context of the article." - bravo for mr. Rubin, and of course, he is as always the expert... --Adam M. Gadomski (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times, you are not an expert, except possibly in your fringe theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---

- "Nothing is so strongly self-sure as ignorance and too much free time together". Good luck. --Adam M. Gadomski (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about you

Welcome,

here is discussion about removing sources of your articles from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Removing_the_reference_articles.21

Best regards,

graduated in cognitive science.

Respect for your mind!

--CogSci11 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)