User talk:Michael Fourman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Michael Fourman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - Chez (Discuss / Email) • 11:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Informatics

Hello, could you explain to me how informatics differs from information science. The term 'information science' seems to be used to refer to a field realted to library science, but also to a field which as far as I know is equivalent to 'informatics' (which the current article on information science describes). In turn the term 'informatics' seems to refer both to an academic discipline and is used as a prefix to refer to the computing aspects of the field it is attached to. I hope you are able to clarify some of this. Cheers, —Ruud 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Hi. Informatics, as used at Edinburgh, at least (and we think also more widely), includes computer science (complexity, algorithms, protocols, networking, programming and programming languages, distributed and concurrent computation, software and hardware architectures, computer and software engineering etc.) and AI (knowledge representation and reasoning, machine learning, natural language and speech processing, robotics, etc.) and cognitive science (cognitive neuroscience, cognitive modelling,etc.). It includes (and often combines) theoretical, engineering, social and experimental studies. In the UK, Information Science is closely tied to Library Science. When forming Informatics at Edinburgh (which brought together a number of existing units, including the Department of Computer Science, the Department of Artificial Intelligence, the Centre for Cognitive Science, the Human Communication Research Centre, the Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, and the Artificial Intelligence Applications institute) we considered Information Science as a name — but rejected it as too 'closed'. We thought Informatics was a name whose meaning we could define, by use, and stretch to fit our subject as it grew. For us, this has worked. We started with a vision, which has stood the test of time pretty well — and still fits the many new activities we now have that would not have fitted neatly into any of the earlier units. We have graduated thousands of students who think of themselves as informaticians , as well as (sometimes, even, instead of) computer scientists or cognitive scientists, or what-have-you. Our view (or at least my view) of Information Science (interpreted as Library Science) is that, like geoinfomatics, bioinformatics, medical informatics, and so on, it is an area of applied informatics, but not part of the core discipline. By contrast, parts of neuroinformatics or systems biology — for example, the parts where we study networks of neurons or networks of genes as information processing systems — do lie within the core discipline of Informatics, but are not part of Information Science as understood in the UK.

The upshot of this is that I think some of the material from Information Science should move to Informatics — and we should have cross-references. Michael Fourman 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lǐ Wèi

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Lǐ Wèi, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://scse.buaa.edu.cn/english/pages/leaders.html. As a copyright violation, Lǐ Wèi appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Lǐ Wèi has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Lǐ Wèi. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Lǐ Wèi, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. --Maxamegalon2000 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh & flights

Hi Michael, I don't think it's necessary to include those three destinations in the main Edinburgh article, the Edinburgh Airport article covers it well enough. Plus of course EDI doesn't have a daily flight to Toronto, it's a weekly summer-only flight. Glasgow's got the heap of Canadian flights. Ta/wangi 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] schools of informatics

we've never had a list on the informatics page. the list goes on the list of computer science programs, or the list of library and information science programs. the parts that are on the informatics page are how individual schools define informatics, as that is most of that the informatics page does, define and explain informatics, not provide a directory to programs. --Buridan 13:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

lists are fine for centralization, but I prefer categories for containing information like this. one issue here is that not everyone sees informatics as different from computer science or library science. it really depends on many issues. surfing wikipedia. i see there is enough to have a category without issue. computer science uses a category called computer science education, which is unpopulated by the majority of programs. --Buridan 20:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Schools of Informatics

There is also an article for the Georgia Institute of Technology College of Computing. Should the category be applied to that article instead? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cranachan

I find the addition of desserts to the Scottish cuisine article a little mystifying. This is in after all, an article about the food of a constituent part of the British Isles, where the term "Pudding" or "Sweet" is in common usage. The term dessert is really an French term that has become a loan word in American English and recrossed the Atlantic. Brendandh 22:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agave syrup

Right--I'm an ethnomusicologist with a side business in agave syrup import-export. And I am working for all three (!) of the linked companies. (Preceding sentences read with heavy irony). Watch your accusations--they can be considered slander. The three linked sites contain detailed descriptions of the syrup and are the best available online resources I have found (at least at present), to explain exactly how the syrup is produced, where, from which plant, with photos, etc. Your edits removed more than simply the links, however. Badagnani 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't originally added the Volcanic link, but found the other two very informative (if not entirely trustworthy, as it's impossible at present to independently verify all the claims, except for the fructose content, etc. from the assays presented in the scientific links just added). That Volcanic link, however, was added repeatedly over a period of weeks by an anon IP and those of us longtime editors on this article finally gave up, as it's not entirely without informational value about the syrup. Did you look straight through it and find no informational value whatsoever? There are many sub-pages, some with information about the syrup production that is not available in the other sites (while, again, not necessarily being entirely trustworthy). Badagnani 08:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked again. Most of the pages are strongly sales-oriented, with this page being the main one describing the production of the syrup. The only other ones of interest present the company's lab assays, mainly presenting the glycemic/sugar content. I'd say if this one is kept in the links, the link above would be the one to go with. The reader can work on figuring out which portions are true and which aren't, and once we know more about the validity of the claims they can be deconstructed in the article. We have a similar process going on at the Wolfberry article: many of the claims made about wolfberry (called "goji" by most of its marketers) are fanciful and incorrect, and several editors working on that article are working to debunk those, one by one, as proper sources are located. Badagnani 08:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I looked again. There really isn't much of use on that page other than a couple of photos showing a guy cutting the agave (those are good), some history that may or may not be true about agave's use by Aztecs and Spaniards, information about where the plants grow and how long it takes to grow a plant to maturity, and a statement (which also may or may not be true) that some producers cut their agave syrup with corn syrup. I agree, it's full of hype. Perhaps we can evaluate the other two and see how they compare. I agree that if a non-sales site had the same detailed information, it would be superior for use in our article. But I've not yet found any such sites. Badagnani 08:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I've already said, in some detail and more than once, that I don't agree with removing all the links for that reason. Badagnani 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's good, but culinary uses represents just one aspect; the other two sources get into details of production, species/varieties used, region of production, etc. I've already stated that we can discuss and deconstruct claims believed or proved to be bogus in the article itself, but the sources themselves are very useful. The readers can sort out differences in claims between them and we can do the same. It's not unreasonable to retain those two sources as containing valuable information, in the absence of completely noncommercial replacements. Badagnani 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I did not originally add the Volcanic link. I looked through it in some detail and presented my findings above. It would be helpful if you would actually address these factual elements of discussion (specifically the elements of the website I pointed out) and not revert to speaking about generalities that we'd already discussed earlier. Let's focus on specifics in each site. No matter whether the sites are used as references in the article, it is always beneficial for a Wikipedia article to have an "External links" section which directs readers to other websites with further information about a topic, and the other two websites seem to be the most informative that exist on this topic on the Internet, other than our own article. Badagnani 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you resort to generalities: "this website is good," "this website is not so good." I took the time to read through, type out and interrogate specific pieces of information located in the site and discuss them above. You do not appear to have the interest to pursue these in detail, or am I wrong? Again and again you email with no reference or mention to the information I have submitted to you. Please, show that you are serious about this subject; that really is what is needed here! Thanks, Badagnani 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have presented a detailed breakdown of the specific points of information I found valuable from the Volcanic site. I'm still waiting for you to address these. We can of course do the same for the other two sites. I do this in collaboration with editors in other website and don't see why it's hard for you to address these specific points I have taken the time to type out above. Thanks, Badagnani 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

With the assumption that you will actually respond to the points I have raised above, I will address yours:

  1. What is the actual historical origin and use of agave syrup as a sweetener in pre-Columbian Mexico, and was it also used as a sweetener by Spaniards during colonial times?
  2. Which species were historically used for agave syrup making, and which species are used today?
  3. When was agave syrup first commercially marketed as a sugar alternative, and is it marketed in Mexico and the Spanish-speaking world or primarily to the United States, Canada, and Europe as a health food?
  4. What are the links, if any, between the agave syrup industry and the tequila industry?
  5. Which specific regions produce (i.e. grow) the syrup, and exactly where is it processed and bottled?
  6. What are the specific processes used to extract and refine the syrup?
  7. Is it true that some unscrupulous producers/refiners "cut" their syrup with other syrups such as corn syrup, then fail to put this on their labels?
  8. Is it true that there are only three companies producing the syrup?

These are just a few questions that come to mind. I'm sure you can think of more. Answers aren't easy to find on websites that are not connected with the marketers, and I didn't have good luck finding good Spanish-language sites either. Badagnani 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go--you found much more than I could. I presume you have a background in botany or some related field? That's exactly the kind of information that is needed. "Aguamiel"--is that a spanish word referring to agave syrup? Knowing that term can probably lead to finding more historical/cultural information, and maybe even some sites in Spanish. Badagnani 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoghurt

Hi, firstly I corrected Turks / Turkish to Bulgars / Hunno-Bulgars. They were also most probably Turkic but we had better call them with their respective names. Secondly, in fact, so far as I know there is no proof on whether it was invented in a particular place or in multiple locations. But the historical facts tend to show us that the direction was from Inner Asia to other places of the world. Any comments welcome ! Chapultepec 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's a matter of discovery, and always within probability. The matter is that there is no clear evidence that it was used elsewhere before the migration of those nomadic tribes, generally south and westward. So, I think we cannot say that "it's only a matter of discovery, so it is likely that it was discovered independently in various regions". We should have some concrete facts to be able to comment like that. I made some changes on the text, changed "invented" to "discovered", removed "first" etc. Chapultepec 01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems great, thank you... Chapultepec 10:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mentioned you yesterday

I was out here at ASU interviewing for their position in policy informatics and mentioned that I'd met you on wikipedia while working on the informatics articles. I've met Brian Loader a few times in person, but I don't think I've met you in person yet, but perhaps sometime in the future:) --Buridan 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to William Cullen

Hello,

About a fortnight ago, you made contributions to the article on William Cullen, using content that appears to have been copied from http://www.nahste.ac.uk/isaar/GB_0237_NAHSTE_P0251.html without permission. For legal reasons (see Wikipedia:Copyrights), Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Therefore, all such additions will be deleted or reverted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. --Aarktica 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Conference on Artificial Intelligence on AFD

FYI, the article on European Conference on Artificial Intelligence is on AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Conference on Artificial Intelligence.  --Lambiam 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)