User talk:Glrx/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.4.17 (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Laplace transform table

Perhaps I should apologize for rigid, confronting and patronizing words here. I tried to fix the table problem, and hope its fine now. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've reread the section, and my sense is that you severely misunderstood my positions. Salix alba did exactly the right thing by simply adding desired references. Please be more circumspect with other WP editors down the road. Thank you for both the apology and supplying better pinpoint references for some exotic functions. Glrx (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: File:HOPE Commercial Certificate of patent.jpg

Hello Glrx. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:HOPE Commercial Certificate of patent.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No such file on Commons. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my first F8 request, and I left off the .jpg extension. I reinserted the speedy with a working filename link to Commons. Glrx (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed .jpg problem on both submissions, and now both CSD/F8 files have now been deleted. Glrx (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice that the missing .jpg was the issue. I'm glad somebody took care of it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

repeated information

I guess I am curious why this Vanity Fair citation was tagged when the harvnb ref had the page citation already. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, I was confused. Thanks for the catch. At that point, I'd spent some time trying to find the lost citation from the author's names and year, and I thought the harvnb only had the pinpoint for JW -- not the whole page range. The article page range should be in the citation and not the footnote. Glrx (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Chorded Keyboards

The new method that was added to the chorded keyboards page was removed and tagged as a potential advertisement. Could you explain how the added material different from the information provided about GKOS or Ekapad or In10did and/or less relevant than these methods? ASETNIOP is new, but it's real (patent pending), and I'd like to make sure that it gets a mention in wikipedia. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnzdennis (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

re Chorded keyboard, this edit, and my revert.

I reverted the edit on the grounds that the edit did not have any reliable sources (WP:RS), and it appeared to be WP:UNDUE coverage. The edit gives the sense that the IP has some connection with ASETNIOP, so that is the reason for the "coi? advert?" in my edit summary. You acknowledge that the method is "new". WP is not a newspaper; it does not report on everything. It is also not a place to advertise new methods or projects. The WP:RS is reason enough to revert the edit. Under WP:BRD, anyone can start a debate on the article's talk page to garner a consensus for inclusion.

The argument that ASETNIOP should be included because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a non-starter. Patents are essentially self-published/not independent of the inventor; patent pending says even less.

Glrx (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for improving the citations & Refs in the π article ... that was lot of tedious work! --Noleander (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Group FMG

re Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Group FMG

Hi Gregory: To the Group FMG submission, you wrotë: I'm not seeing significant general sources that take note of GFMG. Press releases, acquisitions, and new hire announcements offer little weight. Ceros coverage seems narrow. The significant advertising awards were for the acquired Pod1 rather than GFMG (and some awards had an up and coming flavor). WP is not a directory of companies. Article's tone is too glossy.

I am not clear what one is supposed to do. Pod1 is a well respected agency and we acquired it. Pod1 is now Group FMG. So does the aquisition make the company lose its notability rating? Group FMG has been featured by the NY Times (referenced in the article). Should I do something more to get this approved. Any advice is appreciated. I have been at it for 5 months and it looks like I am just no good at this!

Thanks Tgrbengal (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally, see WP:VRS. If a subject is notable, then there should be lots of independent sources about it.

The NYT blog about the acquisition of Pod1 doesn't carry much weight. Articles that quote principals at Group FMG (aka lack independence) also do not carry much weight -- they are merely repeating what the principals want the public to hear. Buying a company doesn't confer notability on the purchasers. Having a lot of money, a lot of investors, or good credit isn't that notable. Hiring notable employees does not confer notability on the employer, either. WP wants the company to be notable in its own right.

In the AfC, the accomplishments (e.g., Webby Awards) all seem to be for Pod1 rather than Group FMG. I'm not sure the Webby Awards would make Pod1 notable, but the awards went to Pod1 rather than Group FMG, so the awards do not make Group FMG notable by association. Pod1 doesn't "lose" anything, but Group FMG does not gain. (Pod1 is only in the top 100 Design Groups; how many Design Groups are there? Is being in the top 100 even that notable?)

WP wants to see articles that show Group FMG has had some significant impact on the public -- and those articles should not be based on press releases the Group FMG sent out. What has Group FMG done that would cause a member of the general public look on WP to see if there is an article on the company? Some businesses might desire Group FMG's marketing services/expertise, but WP wants to be an encyclopedia and not directory. More particularly, has any national or regional source spontaneously written an article about Group FMG?

The article itself is basically a corporate history. Started as X in 1987. Acquired Y. Run by Z.

From the given sources, I don't get the sense that Group FMG is notable. That's not what you want to hear. It's a marketing agency, but there are lots of marketing agencies.

So far, four different editors have declined the article. If it is any consolation, I will let some other editor do the next AfC review.

Glrx (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

AFC helper tool

Hi,
really a big thank you that you doing reviewing AFC submissions and helping us out with the big backlog. I really want to point you to our AFC helper tool which i located at WP:AFCH (with the installation manual). Would you come online to #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and I want to discuss something related to that helper tool if you have some free minutes...

Regards, mabdul 20:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

LZ77 LZ78 article

Someone using the persona Klauria (doesn't exist as a Wiki user) added an encoding and decoding section, along with an example, but it's based on LZW algorighm. It probably should be removed, since it doesn't apply at all to the LZ77 algorithm, and it's an enhancment of the LZ78 algorithm. Rcgldr (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The 4/24 Deletion of the SpiderGraph chart article

Below is a response to a note I left at User talk:GregLChest#re SpiderGraph chart article that I nominated at WP:Articles for deletion/SpiderGraph chart. - Glrx (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: the 4/24 Deletion of the SpiderGraph chart article

Dear Glrx,

I'm sorry that you took our Discussion, as one of contention. It was not, it was one of Frustration! I found it very difficult to explain a "notable concept," (that Wikipedia is looking for, as I stated in my 3/31 "Objection to Deletion" on pg. 3 and again at the end my 2nd response to you on 4/9, refer to your comment #8, see: WP:NOT#DICT, regarding "a concept") to a group of "non-technical Editors," that only think in the "here & now!" The ten Editors did not see or understand the SpiderGraph chart article as being different from the Radar spider chart, as one can see from reading their comments, they just thought they saw another unnecessary spider chart and consequently voted to "delete" it! I would appreciate reconsideration of the deletion of the SpiderGraph chart article and its reinstatement!

Let me give you one of your own examples: (In your 3/27 Notice for Deletion, your first paragraph, sentence #7) states: Other journal sources (e.g., Lurie) extoll the virtues of charts for decision making, but no indication that those sources mention SpiderGraphs. If the chart is notable, then there should be secondary sources that cover it. A similar chart is already addressed at Radar chart, but User:GregLChest claims unsourced distinctions with that chart.

PLS NOTE: The above should read: "extoll the (future) virtues of charts ..." Because, the title of Lurie's paper was "Visual Representation: Implications (meaning Implying) for Decision Making." Meaning that the FUTURISTIC TOPIC MUST BE NOTABLE OR WHY GIVE A PAPER ON IT TO THE AMERICAN MARKETING ASSOCIATION! In their paper, "they mentioned that Visualization tools "have the potential to offer" ... Their paper didn't say "offers or do offer," because this is a paper describing the future potentials for Decision Making! Consequently, there's no way that the future SpiderGraph chart could be mentioned! Their future is now!

However, their paper did mention, that "the possibility for inappropriate application exists, referring to the raw data being "processed," as in the Radar charting method, using Excel software & spreadsheets! Which you claimed was an unsourced distinction!!

Additional comments added 5/3

Dear Glrx,

RE: Additional comments regarding the User:GregLChest 4/30 response to SG article's deletion.

Upon re-reading my 4/30 response regarding your "Other journal sources (e.g., Lurie)" comment, I may have given you the wrong impression! I answered your accusation about "unsourced distinctions only regarding the Lurie paper!

However, after re-reading the last sentence of your initial comment: "A similar chart is already addressed at Radar chart, but User:GregLChest claims unsourced distinctions with that chart," IS MISLEADING & TOTALLY UNTRUE! The SpiderGraph chart article "impartially compares" both types of charts and when a Radar chart fact is mentioned, it is always sourced! The Radar chart article itself documents 3 such distinct Limitations and several articles that are referenced throughout the SG chart article do as well. The erroneously deleted "Six (6) Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart" section of the SG chart article referred to about 18 such documented Limitations, as noted directly by users of the Radar charting method!

Another comment that you made on 4/2 that I didn't quite understand and maybe you can explain to me, was when you said: "Chester's claims ... are not persuasive, they fail to understand the axis-order and linear/sqrt scaling problems of the radar chart (and how those faults directly carry over to a SpiderGraph)," when the former uses a computer & Excel software and the latter doesn't even use a computer!

However, I must appologize to you and the other responding Editors for my abruptness and demonstrated frustration, I believe caused by noting some of the same confusion regarding questions already asked and answered or immaterial to the article.

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory L. Chester

Gregory L. Chester 19:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

5/3 end of added comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of unsourced distinctions, maybe you should reread the entire discussion again, because I covered every Editor's comments to clear up their confusion and I just ran across the above distinctions I made for you, on page 3 - 6 of my 3/31 Objection to Deletion!

Noting that the above mentioned Futuristic Paper does give credence for keeping the SpiderGraph chart in the Wikipedia, which would give the public two (2) different sources to find information on making Trade-off Decisions! Noting also, that anyone can take the rating survey at the end of the article or even edit it if they choose!

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester

PS - To set your mind at ease, No comments regarding acting on Trademark Infringements or Legal Threats were ever made toward anyone at WP by me! It was someone's misguided effort to get the discussions off-track!

Gregory L. Chester 23:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Gregory L. Chester 19:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to respond to the above. I don't want to rehash the debate. Sadly, some editors stepped on you (proposing a topic-ban; "delete with extreme prejudice"), but by that time they had already waded through many of your long responses. The debate was contentious,[1][2][3] and you continue to characterize reasonable editors as "non-technical" and unable to "see or understand". You told Jorgath to "put on [his] Enhancement Hat". You characterized an admin who gave you another week to make your case as "highly opinionated". I'm happy to see that most editors simply ignored your conduct and moved on. Your arguments were repetitive and not on point. From my vantage point, you have failed to see or understand WP:N.

WP has a notability requirement for including articles at WP:GNG. WP wants to see significant coverage of SpiderGraph charts in secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Blogs don't count. Papers that don't mention SpiderGraph charts don't count. Your 1985 paper doesn't count because it is a primary source and it is not independent. We're left with one section of handbook about PLC (not about charting/not significant coverage) which was based on your 1985 paper (so it may fail independence, too). Without a showing of WP:GNG, WP would have rejected Einstein's submissions on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and special relativity. Quite simply, SpiderGraph chart hasn't shown WP:GNG, so it should not be a WP article. The reason I nominated the article for deletion was WP:N. If you look at the other editors' AfD comments, they focus on WP:N/WP:GNG/notability. WP:N has a technical definition that the other editors clearly understand; you continually used your own sense of notability.

There were other technical arguments for deleting the content, but it is pointless to rehash them.

Glrx (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Glrx - When you say that not passing WP:N was your main reason for deletion, could you explain to me why WP:NOT#DICT, which I previously mentioned to you as being right on point regarding a "concept," does not also answer your Notability concerns? Gregory L. Chester 03:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

WP:NOT#DICT is not on point; it does not show that SpiderGraphs meet WP:N. Basically, all NOT#DICT says is that WP is not a dictionary, so WP should not usually have articles that just define words (even if those articles had many reliable, independent, secondary, sources backing them up). The editors were not trying to exclude the SpiderGraph on the basis that it was a dictionary definition. The other editors have no problem with the radar chart other charts being articles on WP. NOT#DICT is exclusionary; it should not be used to prove inclusion. NOT#DICT does not address WP:N or WP:V. To be included, SpiderGraph chart must jump other hurdles besides being a concept. On the other hand, WP:N/WP:GNG are about inclusion. In order for an article to be included, it should have many reliable, independent, secondary, sources. The SpiderGraph chart does not have those sources, so the SpiderGraph fails to jump that hurdle. Glrx (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

REPLY TO Glrx - After reading WP:Notability again, it first states that "it is best treated with common sense!" Well, I agree, the title of WP:NOT#DICT by itself, is not on point, however that WP policy also states what "Encyclopedia articles (and its acceptability) are about," which suited the SpiderGraph chart article to a "Tee!" (Didn't you even read my example of Notability, referring to that policy?) I understand that the Editors are not trying to exclude the SG article on the basis of a dictionary definition, but when I was reviewing WP:NOT, it was the first place I found, that explained what an Encyclopedia IS LOOKING FOR, I didn't know that that policy should not be used to prove inclusion! No RE let me know that fact or helped me find a better example! I guess that's where common sense comes in!

You stated that the other editors have no problem with the Radar chart article, well my research found that many of its users do, as pointed out in my 5/3 message to you regarding your example of the Lurie Visual Decision-making paper that was given to the AMA, which should make it "worthy of notice!" (WP:N/WP:V) That paper extolled charts like the SpiderGraph chart and warned about charts that "process raw data" to draw their charts (like the Radar spider chart! I believe that paper should be enough evidence from a "reliable independent source" to "presume" (WP:GNG) the SG chart article's possible attention by association, since they both do the same thing, but in very different ways! Also, in that same 5/3 message to you, please refer to your "presumed unsourced distinctions" that I referred to.

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester Gregory L. Chester 19:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Does Lurie specifically discuss your SpiderGraph chart? Where does any reputable source compare and contrast the SpiderGraph chart by name with the radar chart (or even other charts)? Your argument is radar charts have problems, so there must be a better chart, and that chart is the SpiderGraph chart. Fine. WP doesn't allow editors to do their own WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, and your views have a significant WP:COI rider. WP needs some independent WP:RSs that do the research, make the evaluations, and tell WP that SpiderGraphs are distinct from radar charts. Without reliable sources that discuss it by name, a SpiderGraph chart is not notable. Your arguments try to evade the reliable source requirement, but that doesn't work. A SpiderGraph chart article needs sources.

Glrx (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

REPLY TO Glrx's 8 May 2012 comments:

As I pointed out previously, in Dr. Lurie and Dr. Mason's (both Marketing PhDs) 2007 paper, it doesn't mention names, but speaks directly to charting methods and concepts! It's because of their independent research, that their paper distinctly warns against raw data being "processed" to create visual representations, which in this case, speaks directly to Radar charts. (As did the "Six (6) Limitations Comments by Radar chart users" section of the SG article that was erroneously deleted from the article!) Since I only know about two decision-making charting methods and now that Radar charts have been excluded, then Common Sense would suggest, w/o the need for any new analysis or synthesis, that they must be referring to the SpiderGraph charting method, that is, unless you know of other decision-making charting methods.

The HelpMakingDecision.com website, which aired in 1999, gives numerous examples of the SpiderGraph's ease and universality, which can't be said for the Radar chart, because everyone has to first learn how to fill-out an Excel spreadsheet, that is if they even have a computer! (Have you even looked at that website?) I believe you have the authority to disregard the value of a name, since all other WP policies have been met, and let the SG charting method and concept article "stand the test of time" or fail on its own, because of the survey for that purpose, at the end of each article! Therefore I would like to nominate and pray, that Wikipedia should have articles on all "Trade-off" Decision-making Methods, to demonstrate its impartiality and to allow a choice, for the common good of the public, in an effort to remain the best free encyclopedia in the world!

To reiterate, the SG article would have cited Radar chart users pointing out its many problems, if it weren't for an RE deleting it! The SG article impartially compares the two methods, intentionally omitting any hint of COI. As mentioned above, it's the independent Lurie paper to the AMA that confirms the distinction, not the Author! The SG article cites that the problems of the Radar chart are caused by the Excel computer software (that you also confirmed) and that it's easy to see that the SG method doesn't require a computer to draw a chart or make a decision. Common Sense should also dictate that the Calculations to make decisions of the SG method are better vs. the Estimations to "help" hint at a decision of the Radar charting method! (WP:MNA) The SG charting method is so easy to understand and obvious to the casual observer, that a reliable source is not required, which would only tend to belittle the reader! My arguments, using the truth and facts, are not trying to evade the reliable source requirement, the Lurie paper and the Industry Handbook, found in the Library of Congress, supports that for me, as well as many other cited examples throughout the article and restated in the discussion!

In addition, I believe that because the WP:NOT#DICT policy explains what "Encyclopedia articles are about" and the SpiderGraph chart meets those criteria, "which that policy also states as being acceptable to WP," then Common Sense (and the occasional exception, as mentioned in WP:N) should also suggest, that the Nominator should also accept the SpiderGraph chart article as being Notable, not have proven otherwise!

I understand that a good Admin/Nominator must perform "Due Diligence" on each of their selected articles. I also understand that a good Admin has the opportunity to make good, Common Sense judgments, while using his tools fairly and never to try to use them to gain an advantage in a dispute, like this one! What I don't understand is why you didn't perform that same "Due Diligence" on the comments from your confused Voting REs or why you don't reply to my questions regarding some of your confusing comments?? I would like to remove some of my frustrations by helping you to understand the SG chart's simplicity and hopefully help you begin to see that we are discussing two different charts and charting methods??

I must assume that you volunteer at Wikipedia because "you're proud of that association with a world- renown public-service website and the fact that you have the opportunity to help make it even better!" I too have the same desire! However, I would hope that receiving BarnStar awards is only a side-effect of your doing a good job! I must also assume that being part of the top 5% of active Wikipedians and earning a Golden Wiki Award, may also imply that you have been so busy that you've met yourself coming & going and maybe even to cutting a few corners, like not answering my questions about:

1) How linear/sqrt scaling problems are even found in a Radar chart and "how those faults of the Radar chart directly carry over to a SG chart?"

2) How the SG sources are wrong in that they fail to distinguish a SpiderGraph chart from a Radar spider chart, when the whole article is full of impartial comparisons & even pictures of each! Well, gee that must be true because most of your voting REs are still confused about the spider chart in their "delete" comments! Even the Six (6) Limitations of Radar charts section of the SG article, that was deleted by one of your non-technical REs, had several verifiable sources, that were taken out of the article!

3) Speaking about your comments regarding your learned REs, (which will be Refuted in the next paragraph) that begin: "Sadly, some editors stepped on you (proposing a topic-ban; "delete with extreme prejudice"), but by that time they had already waded through many of your long responses, the debate was contentious,[2][3][4] and you continue to characterize reasonable editors as "non-technical" and unable to "see or understand". You told Jorgath to "put on [his] Enhancement Hat". (FYI, my referral about "Enhancement" came from Jorgath's own wishes stated on his User Talk page, about "He wanted to enhance the Wikipedia, which I even mentioned in my 10th paragraph to Jorgath, trying to clear up all of his confusion, which you apparently didn't get to!) (How can you tell someone they're wrong and not source it with the truth??)

Jorgath's first sentence was: "I...wow. I just have no idea, but I'll give this a shot." His first paragraph started positive & opened-minded! But, then he crossed it out and got really negative, by stating unsubstantiated, unwarranted, negative conclusions in his very 1st paragraph of 44 words! He may have read the SG article, but he surely didn't understand it! Although, he did mention that I should have sourced the fact that the SG chart didn't need a computer! His 4th sentence in his 2nd paragraph, was "Radar charts may use linear axes." (wrong!) He did however, "look" at the Radar chart article and assumed that the "square box of 16 car chart examples" could be done on 1 Radar chart. (wrong!)

What really bothers me is when you said reasonable editors, which tells me that you didn't even take the time to read all of their comments and yet you had no opinion from reading Jorgath's first sentence or when you made that enhancement comment, which proves that you never read my 10th paragraph, where I addressed that comment. I initially explained to you, just how much I don't like to type (with 2 fingers), so please believe me when I say, that I didn't want a "wall of text," but I tried to truthfully reply to each of the RE's comments! However, the comments made by them reflected their Topical Knowledge, which proved that there were very few peers, if any, on my article's jury! Also, the Judge should have taken the time to read and should have known all the facts, before making a decision! (Please refer to my comments regarding "Due Diligence!")

It's no wonder I feel frustrated! I feel Railroaded, because there was prejudice & confusion in every RE's comments, even yours, that you didn't see or want to take the time to see! You didn't even reply to any technical questions about your comments! You have thrown the WP policy book at me and I have truthfully answered all your questions, evading none and I have jumped all of your hurdles and still you seem to hardnosed to make the exception of not being specifically named in the Dr. Lurie & Dr. Mason's AMA paper, even if Methods are duscussed and not eliminated, as was the case of the Radar chart?? If you wish to see the SpiderGraph chart being specifically named in articles, I can email you scanned copies of Ref #4, "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs" and Ref #5, "The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation," found in the Library of Congress.

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 22:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Gregory L. Chester 05:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 15:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 20:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 21:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: The Source of Glrx's 3/27 "Proposal for article's Deletion's" incorrect assumption that SG article is based on a single 1985 journal article by G. L. Chester.

ATTN.: Glrx & all Voting REs

The above incorrect assumption of "one primary source" for the SG article was caused by an over zealous RE, that on 2/24/2012 performed a "Major work over & removals" to the SG article, to which the Author immediately replied on the TALK:SPIDERGRAPH CHART section on 2/27/2012:

---

Dear Reviewing Editors, I NEED YOUR HELP!

RE: The "SpiderGraph chart" article went from AFC to Public Article on Feb. 23rd. I'M NOW REQUESTING TO RETURN ARTICLE BACK TO IT'S PREVIOUS CONDITION.

Problem: Feb. 23rd & 24th, shortly after the article went public, a known, but not named, (name omitted by this Author) Reviewing Editor (clearly not a technical person) performed "a Major work over & section removals" of the total article, distorting its purpose and confusing most of the comparison facts and references, as well as disregarding the notability & verifiability facts referenced, that the SpiderGraph chart was mentioned in trade magazines and is presently included in the "'Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation," found in the Library of Congress.

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: This un-named, non-technical RE had eliminated any written mention of the Handbook, that the Author had placed in the SG article! The RE then, placed the Handbook's 1986 Reference #5, piggybacking the 1985 Ref #4, located in the "A Charting-Style Timeline" section of the article! The 2nd primary source, namely the Handbook (WP:N & V) should have at least had its own Timeline mention, that would have saved all of the sourcing confusion that followed!

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

I am not the route for an appeal on the AfD decision. That route is WP:DRV. Personally, I am unsympathetic to such an appeal, and, given the unanimous AfD result, I believe an appeal would be pointless.

User:Shearonink gave you some good advice, and you should follow it. Ask an admin to copy SpiderGraph chart to your user space; I think User:Mabdul suggested an appropriate version on User talk:Shearonink.

I don't see any new statements in your comments above. The Handbook reference was known during the AfD discussion; it was mentioned three times; I could even bring a snippet view up on Google books. There is no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. The other editors' comments at AfD were uniformly against the article. I think some of the RE's were a little confused on some details, but they still had a good understanding of the overall picture. A single purpose account (you) with a strong conflict of interest wanted his article included in WP. Despite repeated requests (and two extensions), that single purpose account did not supply any reliable source that compared and contrasted SpiderGraph charts with radar charts. The single purpose account acknowledged that SpiderGraphs were kept secret, so there would not be articles about the SpiderGraph. In addition to the lack of WP:RS, several editors opined that SpiderGraph charts were radar charts. No reliable sources refuted their opinion.

You certainly have not helped your case. It does not take technical people to judge WP:N. Even non-technical editors can judge a list of reliable sources that discuss the SpiderGraph chart. If the list of independent secondary sources isn't there, or is very short, or is in narrow technical publications, then they can render a solid opinion. WP is an encyclopedia; it is not a repository for all knowledge.

Your claimed distinctions of the two charts lack substance. Georg von Mayr didn't have an Excel spreadsheet let alone a computer in 1877, so his "line in circle" plots were done manually. There's no indication that he was a proponent of "geometry" or nonlinear scaling to counteract the 2D area impression.

You claim I haven't explained to you the technical criticisms of square root scaling or axis order . You haven't read How to Lie with Statistics; it's not even clear that you understood the summary at the How to Lie with Statistics article, which states "It also shows how statistical graphs can be used to distort reality, for example ... by representing one-dimensional quantities on a pictogram by two- or three-dimensional objects to compare their sizes, so that the reader forgets that the images do not scale the same way the quantities do." The axis order argument is given at radar chart#Artificial structure; c.f. "spiking". For someone who makes such strong claims about the benefits of SpiderGraphs over radar charts, you seem to have a poor understanding of either graph's limitations. You have claimed that many editors have not read or understood the arguments you presented, but that is not what I see. You should consider your position very carefully.

Glrx (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

REPLY TO Glrx's 21 May 2012 statements:

I'm not surprised to read that "you're unsympathetic to an appeal and that you believe one would be pointless." Because, you have been the article's major opponent throughout, I expected your attitude! What I don't understand is why you ignore RE Mabdul's deletion of the articles "Not to be confused with a Radar chart" section and also the "Six Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart" section (which I felt should be reinstated), or why you commented that there aren't enough secondary sources after their deletion! And then again, when Mabdul didn't "see the Value" of the "Additional Reading" section and deleted that too! I had to prove to him that the 3 references he removed, were about Decision-making and remind him that's what the article is all about, so he would reinstate it! To which you stated to me, that "Mabdul just gave up faith, because I wore him down!(what happened to the truth??) Or when I read Mabdul's answer to your RfA/Question #5 and discovered "he had changed the truth dealing with his reason" for deleting the "Additional Reading" section. I pointed that out to you on your Talk Page (to be discreet), to which you "overlooked the lack of the truth again" and told me that I should "learn to use indent/diff colons" and also that "you had heard everything before" and that it was also inappropriate for me to put it on your Talk Page!"(??)

And then, most recently, when your 3rd paragraph starts out with "I don't see any new statements in your comments above." after I had just pointed out to you that an overzealous RE (CC) had done "A Major Work Over & sections Removal" to the article, a couple of days after it went public, which his actions kept you and your voting REs from learning that a Secondary Source even existed, because he had deleted any mention in the article of the Industry's Standard Handbook, which is a Very Notable secondary source!! Consequently, by your statement, I guess you've decided to ignore that fact too, like all the others! Unfortunately, after discovering an important fact like that, A little Common Sense (which is emphasized in WP:N) should have told you that the SG article was deleted w/o having all the facts! It's no wonder that all your REs were confused, the major secondary source had been omitted from the article!! You should have known, that w/o all the facts, no RE could be expected to make a sound judgment! I would have thought that you would have recalled the vote or temporarily reinstated the article, but since you've placed most of the barriers all along the way, maybe the outcome was to you're liking, so you just ignored the facts! However, since you've bungled this inquisition from the start, "causing my 'wall of text' & your REs' confusion," maybe you should just Recuse yourself and reinstate the article! Maybe a DVR is called for, but this time with Technical Peers to this article, as apposed to the present non-technical Tag Team, that have missed or confused everything, which has caused me to distrust them! Maybe an informal meditation by Nyttend, who was a passerby to the original deletion of the article, should be suggested! (This turn of events has caused me to ask, if the Wiki Foundation ever gives the new Authors a survey, so the good helpers and bad Bully, Power-playing REs can be given their "just due" attention?)

In your 3/27 proposal, you stated: "It appears to be based on a single 1985 journal article by G. L. Chester. Secondary sources endorsing this particular chart are absent." Unfortunately, when you and your REs read the SG article, the mention of the Industry Handbook had already been deleted on Feb. 24th by an overzealous RE, as I tried to point out in my previous comments!! Consequently, everyone's "Delete vote" was made w/o the knowledge of any Industry Handbook, as a notable Secondary Source, as well as any previously deleted sections that may have answered some of their questions in their comments to me! You went on to state, that "The Handbook reference was known during the AfD discussion (AGAIN, THAT'S ONLY YOUR ASSUMPTION); it was mentioned three times (BY ONLY THE AUTHOR; THERE WERE NEVER ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE REs, IN FACT, NO RESPONSES AT ALL, WHICH WAS VERY ODD, AFTER ALL THE TIME I SPENT TRYING TO CLARIFY THEIR CONFUSION!)" It was your statements that caused the REs to believe there were no secondary sources! In fact, your next sentences even state: "There is no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. The other editors' comments at AfD were uniformly against the article!" You even stated: "I think some of the REs were a little confused on some details, but they still had a good understanding of the overall picture." (WRONG!) (In fact, their Delete Comments to me, proved that they were "more than just a little confused" having read nothing about any notable Standard Handbook, as a secondary source! With some REs' comments, I even wondered if they understood what they had read in the SG article!) Which is reinforced at the end of your 3rd paragraph, when you state: "... several editors opined that SpiderGraph charts were radar charts." Those comments of yours ONLY BACK UP MY FOLLOWING COMMENT ABOUT "APPLES & ORANGES," "THE NEED FOR THEM TO BE "TECHNICALLY-ORIENTED," AND ABOUT THE "SUBTLE DIFFERENCES!" As for your comment about "No reliable sources refuted their opinion." The Radar spider chart had cited references and the SG chart doesn't need any! (WP:MNA) "How do you cite the obvious" like there is: NO computer; SG charts are drawn by hand in 2D; calculations are better than estimations; there are no relationships possible, like those shown in Radar charts, because there is only one pattern and it's made up of different FeatureLines; and then this one, a line is linear?? It was the fact that there weren't many citations to state the ease and simplicity of the SG chart, that made it even more important to know about its secondary source!

It should be remembered, that the editors of the "Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation" saw the Control Engineering Trade Magazine article and asked if they could include the SG article as a lead-in to the "State-of-the-Art Control Systems" section of their 460 pg. industry's Standard Handbook of Industrial (Factory) Automation, proving that they thought the SG article was Very Notable by asking that it be included in their industry's Standard Handbook. The Handbook is, as you know, presently found in the Library of Congress. (This is the "Secondary" Notable & Verifiable Source for the SG article, that you said was absent and therefore, no REs could have even known about, let alone looked for or read! It's no wonder why all your REs voted to delete the article!

(AN IMPORTANT NOTE: Comparing the SpiderGraph chart vs. the Radar (spider) chart is like comparing Apples & Oranges and if the RE is not "technically-oriented," they may miss a lot of the subtle differences, that were pointed out in the article's impartial comparisons. Unfortunately, their comments proved that they had missed a lot, because most thought the two charts were the same, as you mentioned above!)

Regarding your SPA comment, also in your 3rd paragraph, the SG article is not an essay, nor a minority viewpoint of a niche interest, everyone in the world makes Trade-off Decisions! And right now, there's "only one Method" to do that, which most users don't like, but then the SG article would have proven that, before your favorite RE (Mabdul) deleted that section! As far as COI is concerned, again I've mentioned several times, that I eliminated any hint of COI by using Item-for-Item impartial comparisons, between the two types of charts!

In your 3rd paragraph, you also said that the "SPA did not supply any reliable source that compared and contrasted SpiderGraph charts with Radar charts." (Didn't you even read the SG chart article, the facts about the Radar chart were sourced and the facts about the SG chart were so obvious, they didn't need sourced? Or maybe you missed a section, after your favorite RE (Mabdul) deleted it in January. It was called the "Not to be confused with a Radar chart" section of the SG article (which also included many references). Or maybe you read the article after RE (CC) deleted "the three (3) steps showing how simple it was to construct a SpiderGraph chart," on February 24th, saying that "the WP is no place for a How-to Manual!" He also shortened the Educator & Manufacturer comments in the article by one whole paragraph each, though I can't tell you why??

Let me try to clarify my previous comment regarding Apples vs. Oranges:

The 1st paragraph of the "SpiderGraph chart vs. Radar (spider) chart section" of the SG chart article, states a very key point, "..., while they (the charts) may look alike, they perform different functions to arrive at their trade-off decisions." For an example of the differences, the Radar (spider) charting method requires spreadsheets for "processing the raw data," (there are no spreadsheets required for the SG, because there is no computer processing to do), so the computer (the SG method is so simple & straight-forward that it doesn't even require a computer) can construct multiple 3D patterns (the SG chart is in 2D) to help analyze and estimate (the SG method uses calculations, not estimations) "data trend relationships" between the patterns on the same chart (as for the SG method, relationships are impossible, since there is only one pattern, per chart), to help derive at the trade-off decisions. (all Radar charting functions were cited & all SG charting functions are so simple, that it would be obvious to the casual observer, therefore no references are needed.) (WP:MNA)

However, the 2nd paragraph of that section, refers to the SpiderGraph chart and states: "...simple paper & pencil (not computer) charting & selection method, to be constructed and plotted (by hand) by the user." The 3rd paragraph states: "The SpiderGraph chart plots FeatureLines for "only one item per chart" (shown in Image #2); "not multiple items," like the Radar chart (shown in Image #3). This is done for ease of FeatureLine direct measurement (because the line is linear and also of one dimension), calculation (simple addition of hash marks on each FeatureLine), and visual verification ... Everything is simple & straight-forward and "..., there are no relationships possible between any of the plotted Rating Dots on different FeatureLines of that item."

In the 4th paragraph of your comments, you state: "It does not take technical people to judge WP:N." and normally I would have to agree with you. However, in this case, no one noticed that the reference [#5] for the major secondary source, the Industry Handbook, was in the wrong place and any mention of it in the article was absent, unfortunately due to a Major Work Over & Removal on Feb. 24th by an over zealous RE, that I mention in my previous comments! (Do you think that all secondary sources got checked by your non-technical people? I don't either!) No one, not even you or me, noticed that it was missing. However, I do remember placing in the article and therefore, wasn't looking for it.! I also remember that you mentioned that "no reliable sources" were cited for the SG chart. Well, please refer to the bottom of this comment's paragraph #3, entitled "How do you cite the obvious", which I believe "technical people" would have picked up on? You also mentioned something about "narrow technical publications," well "Industrial Automation," in case you didn't know, is another name for "Factory Automation" and that's definitely not a "narrow" Industry, in fact, it's worldwide! In addition, it's my opinion that if a source is missing from the article, "no one" can render a solid opinion!

Referring to your 5th paragraph, I do not believe that any of my "claimed distinctions" mentioned in my paragraph #3, asking "How do you cite the obvious", lacks substance! As for your far-afield comment about Mr. Mayr not using Excel software or computers, while I'm sure you are correct, how is that even relevant? However, I would guess that he used an old fashion Drafting Compass that draws different size arcs (similar to the star plot in the 1st Image of the Radar chart article), which I'm sure would require nonlinear scaling. However, I'm not at all sure how one would go about using it to help make a decision??

As for your 6th and final paragraph, I now know why you have taken so long (4/2 to 5/21) to reply to my 1st unanswered question! My question was incorrectly posed the last time! I meant to add the words "are even" to directly carried over, but the "are even" got written on the line above, which confused the issue. However, the question was accurately stated in my NOTE that followed your DELETE paragraph in my 4/9 reply! MY MAJOR CONCERN WAS AND STILL IS: "HOW YOU COULD SAY THAT THE PROBLEMS OF THE RADAR CHART 'DIRECTLY CARRY OVER' TO A SPIDERGRAPH?" I'm sorry if you thought I didn't understand the Radar chart problems, they just don't apply to the SpiderGraph, which doesn't use area and who's axis or FeatureLines can be placed in any order on the chart!

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 20:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

QUESTION TO Glrx: Do you need more time?

Usually, you've been very fast to respond to my replies to your many statements, but since I've lately proven in my last two replies that your decision to delete the SpiderGraph chart article was made w/o all the facts regarding a secondary source, do you need more time to do the right thing?

Sincerely, Gregory L. Chester 23:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

No, I don't need more time.

I don't see this discussion going anywhere. You haven't stated anything new; you continue repeating the same things as if repetition will make them true; I've understood your position for a long time. You haven't "proven" anything. My position is you don't understand the substantive content issues or WP's requirements for articles. You clearly do not understand the axis order, area, or manual vs. computer arguments above. You also want all editors to ignore WP's requirements for multiple, independent, reliable, sources; most editors choose not to ignore WP:GNG. Those issues were raised in the multiple rejections at AfC and in the AfD debate. You think those criticisms were wrong, but I think they were right. At least ten editors disagree with your position and agree with deletion. Only one editor (the one who accepted the AfC after many rejections) agreed with you, but that editor acknowledged that the AfD debate was headed for a delete.

As I said above, I do not want to rehash the debate.

Glrx (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I WISH TO REQUEST A DELETION REVIEW BEFORE FILING A GRIEVANCE OF "ADMINISTRATIVE ABUSE AND LACK OF ACTION" REGARDING THE DELETION DISCUSSION FOR THE WP:SPIDERGRAPH CHART ARTICLE!

ATTN. Glrx:

In your 27 March & 2 April 2012 "Proposal for Deletion," you stated that: "This article has many faults. It fails WP:N. It appears to be based on a single 1985 journal article by G. L. Chester. Secondary sources endorsing this particular chart are absent." You additionally questioned compliance with WP:N, DUE, NOR, NPOV, COI, and ADVERT. [4] [5] Then, in the 2 April 2012 revised Proposal, you muddy the waters by adding comments about my trademark, that had been removed long ago and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion!

In my 31 March 2012 "Objection to Deletion" and Response to your concerns, I answered you're WP policy concerns and included a copy of my15 January 2012 reply to WP:N/N:

Complying to your comments regarding Notability, I have copied my 1/15/2012 response to WP:N/N:

This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria (A7) and/or guidelines on notability. Please provide more information on why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

THE IMPORTANCE & NOTABILITY FOR INCLUSION IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECT MATTER: "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart" [6]

In the above Notability Response, in the 7th paragraph, beginning with: "Fortunately ... " the (1985 primary source) trade magazine article (Ref. #4) and the (Very Notable 1986 Secondary Source), The Standard Handbook of Industrial (a/k/a Factory) Automation, that is found in the Library of Congress (Ref. #5), were mentioned! Those facts were mentioned again twice in the body of my response. (re WP:N & V) (NOTE: I think 3/31 was the 1st time that Glrx saw these references and I don't believe any attempt has been made to inform the Reviewing Editors!)

(THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING THE ABOVE TWO REFERENCES, that was not discovered until after the article went public and was Proposed for Deletion: a Reviewing Editor, Chiswick Chap, performed a "Major work over & removals" on 24 February 2012 to the whole SpiderGraph chart article, cutting it in half and incorrectly blending the above two (2) references into one (1) called "SpiderGraph paper by G.L. Chester" in the "A Charting Style Timeline," that was also reduced to just "Timeline" section.[7] Unfortunately, at that time, all mention of a secondary source was scrubbed from the article, which wasn't discovered until later, which biased the voting Reviewing Editors against the article!) (Most Reviewing Editors, including Glrx, stated that they thought the "SpiderGraph chart was just another Radar spider chart!" This is definitely contrary to the purpose of the article!)

On 2 April 2012, Glrx added his "Delete as nominator." comments.[8] Chester's claims ... are not persuasive, and they fail to understand the axis-order and linear/sqrt scaling problems of the radar chart (and how those faults directly carry over to a SpiderGraph). (A FACT THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE!) The computer software used to create the radar charts causes the problems and the SpiderGraph charting method uses no computer! (In my 4/9 reply to Glrx, I asked him to clarify his statement, which he ignored and has never complied with!)

On 21 May 2012, I reminded Glrx again about the drastic revision that had removed any mention of a secondary source for the article[9], which had caused his "incorrect assumptions" and all of the "Delete votes" from the Reviewing Editors. Still no message went out to the REs about the omission that could have informed them and hopefully cause them to change their votes!

Glrx's 21 May 2012 reply was "I am not the route for an appeal on the AfD decision. (And yet, I thought he was in charge of the Discussion. Unfortunately, he never stated that the Discussion was over??) In his 3rd paragraph, he states: "I don't see any new statements in your comments above." (Which seems to be one of his "pat answers" for not answering and doing nothing!) I had previously mentioned the Industry Handbook as the missing secondary source 3 times in the discussions, but never received one comment whatsoever back from any of the REs, so I thought it must mean more if it comes directly from Glrx, the Nominator.[10] Consequently, I replied back stating: "You should have known, that w/o all the facts, no RE could be expected to make a sound judgment!" Also, I tried to clarify my reasoning for not citing the obvious facts when comparing the two charts and the necessity for a jury of technical peers![11]

I waited about 10 days to see if you would comment on my reply to your 21 May statements, but nothing! I had to assume you were trying to run the clock out, without commenting on my suggestions to Recuse yourself or obtain informal mediation, so I asked you if you needed more time to do the right thing. (which was, Respond to my answers to your accusations and do something!) [12]

Your 8 June 2012 reply was more of the same: Discussion going nowhere; You haven't stated anything new; Repetition won't make them true; I've understood your position for a long time (but haven't taken any action on!); You haven't "proven" anything; My position is you don't understand the substantive content issues (please describe what you're talking about here??) or WP's requirements for articles; and oh yes, "this one takes the cake": You clearly do not understand the axis order, area, or manual vs. computer arguments above. (You have never answered my question about "how," in your statement that "Radar chart faults carry over to SpiderGraph charts, because they don't, they both have different charting methods!).

HERE ARE SOME OF WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE DESIRED TRAITS FOR A GOOD REVIEWING EDITOR OR ADMIN: a) I believe they must know more than just WP policies, they must also DISPLAY GOOD COMMON SENSE. b) They must do more than debate, THEY MUST MAKE HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS, BE NEUTRAL & TAKE ACTION, WHEN NECESSARY! c) They must have A WELL-ROUNDED EDUCATION (just having a degree doesn't mean much!). d) They must DEMONSTRATE MATURITY, to help keep one's Ego in check! e) They must know that Maturity breeds INTEGRITY! f) They must BE SELECTIVE TO WORK ON PROJECTS THEY HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF! g) They must AVOID FROM BUILDING POWER-BASES!

HERE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS I HAVE, FOR FILING A "GRIEVANCE OF ABUSE OF ADMIN POWERS": 1) Glrx has not demonstrated "any" of the above desired traits in our dealings!

2) Your PfD stated: Secondary Sources are absent! My Reply mentioned the Industry Standard Handbook in the WP:N statement and twice in the body of my reply! You did not ACT to find the reason for the Difference in Statements??

3) When I mentioned the Secondary Source Handbook 3 times in the Discussion, again you did not ACT to look for it in the article nor to acknowledge my comments about it in the discussion!

4) When I told you that RE Chiswick Chap had rearranged & shortened the article and omitted any mention of an Industrial Standard Handbook, as well as goofed-up the Reference citations, which helped create this whole SNAFU, I was surprised that you ignored it and didn't try to verify my comments & inform the voting REs! I further believe that the REs were not informed in order for you to retain your advantage of "100% Consensus for Deletion," mainly because you could not see the difference nor explain your "carry over comments" regarding the two charting methods! Which has now been exemplified by your "You clearly do not understand ... " intimidation comments in this, your very last response! [13] It would have definitely changed the outcome! (Two & a half months and never receiving your explanation is to long a time to wait??) (I think nine months is also a very long time to write any article for WP!) (It was never fun! I lost a lot of sleep!!) (To many non-technical, egotistical Bullys, making haphazard deletions, about something they know nothing about!)

5) When I told you I had noticed that Mabdul had lied in his RfA/Question #5, you ignored that and told me "to learn about colons & diffs!" You also didn't comment when I told you Mabdul had previously deleted 3 sections of the article! Mabdul has proven himself to be an Egotistical Bully and when you told me that you came to this article through Mabdul, you became suspect to me, which later proved to me, the old adage: "Birds of a feather, ...".

6) You could have treated my WP:NOT#DICT comments with Common Sense, guide me to a location or even made an exception when you knew I was looking for a rule of thumb for writing encyclopedic articles & learn about their acceptance and that I was not planning to use it for a Dictionary! The same is true about using Common Sense, when "not citing, when the facts are obvious !"

7) You could have used "Due Diligence" and better discretion in the selection or elimination of educated(?) REs when their first comments were: "I...wow. I just have no idea, but I'll give this a shot." or if they were a 26 year old college student! You should have known that at least the RE's Education and Maturity were very important for them to be fair & impartial for this article! (That's where an information sheet about each RE (at least sex, age, & education) would have been very helpful to know who you're corresponding with!) (Having a PhD in Philosophy really doesn't tell me anything about who Glrx is??)

In addition, like I previously mentioned, a Wiki Foundation survey for new authors to make comments about REs would have been a good Checks & Balance idea, to help eliminate Egotistical Bullys! With that, maybe this SNAFU would never have happened!

Needless to say, I would appreciate the SpiderGraph chart article being reinstated (undeleted) and having Chiswick Chap correct his self-inflicted errors and Mabdul to reinstate the "Six (6) Limitations" section of the article that he deleted!

PLEASE NOTE: If your lack of action is not corrected, I will be submitting this Grievance to the Admin Noticeboard, of which, I'm sure you are well aware!

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 21:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC) DRV templet removed Gregory L. Chester 21:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to discuss the AfD result with Rjd0060 at User talk:Rjd0060. See the procedural steps at WP:DRV. Also recall DoriSmith's cautions. I do not believe you meet the DRV criteria because Rjd0060 did not misinterpret the debate (you were the only keep) and you have not disclosed any new information. Glrx (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)