This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to
systems and
systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Removing tags, blank edit summaries
When you are ready to behave professionally, let me know and I'll unprotect the page. I have no special connection to this article, but removing the tags without an explanation is
disruptive.
El_C 04:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Also, please consider registering an account instead of, confusingly, hopping from IP to IP.
El_C 04:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I am sorry to stop attempting to put some logic into the squabble between religious concepts, art, charlatanry a pinch of science that passes as an entry for Synergy in Wikipedia. The editor has clearly no knowledge nor interest about the subject (he wrote me so) and just applies lazily archaic dogmatic rules without regard to logic, clarity and relevance. I am ashamed to have recommended in innumerable occasion students to check Wikipedia without being aware that many article are badly edited, contain misleading information and rather subtract from the knowledge of the reader. Cheers
MercuryTest (
talk) 20:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
This response comes after several attempts to improve the section on synergy that were deleted without any explanations
MercuryTest (
talk) 20:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
If this message is for me, I will try to edit with my login MercuryTest. Sorry if I have coused disruptions. I am new to editing wiki. But the article on synergy is totally biased towards religious cristian fundamentalism promoted by Peter Crorning and I try to provide more scientific alternative views
201.208.118.204 (
talk) 12:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Psychokinetically enslaved by the most intuitive man
In the end of its exponentially accelerating hierarchization, the universe's matter becomes psychokinetically enslaved by the most intuitive man. (underline is my emphasis)—This seems like
synthesis and, anyway, is too complex for the
lead. Psychokinetically enslaved (whatever that supposed to mean) needs to be better explained and better referenced, at the very least, if it even belongs in the article, to to mention the lead. It all seems like
undue weight to the concept of synergy. How is the reader to make sense of this in the context of an
encyclopedia article?
El_C 04:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
In the article, "psychokinetically enslaved" is a hyperlink, and people can easily learn what it is. Enslavement is the central notion of synergetics, so it cannot be omitted.
91.122.11.237 (
talk) 04:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not easily at all. That link to wikiquote serves as a poor explanation (I, at least, have had trouble with it)—if you want to write about synergetics, maybe devote a section to it in the body; and also work to depict it as if you're writing an encyclopedia article, because
that's what Wikipedia is. I'm not sure delving into the depths is appropriate for the
lead. This article is about the concept of synergy, more broadly. Try to write with the average reader in mind, not as if you're writing for other specialists, like in an academic journal.
El_C 05:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The most intuitive man becomes capable of psychokinesis.—Is there scholarly consensus that this amounts to the definition of synergy at its highest form? Because it appears to be, at the very least,
undue weight. Synergy has several meanings in English, and it looks like the lead is emphasising, and also
synthesising, just one aspect. The lead, especially, remains overspecialised and does not read like an introductory effort into synergy, in all its many forms.
El_C 06:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Basically, I'm concerned that you've turned the lead into a discussion about
Synergetics rather than
Synergy. You can't monopolise the article—the way you've been going is not sustainable. I've been far too lenient with you, both your behaviour and your content.
El_C 06:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Still waiting for a response...
El_C 08:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I agree that the past few days' changes have completely altered the first part of the article into something unrecognizable as a general article on synergy. I would be in favor of reverting back to somewhere around 17 May. Perhaps the editor(s) making these changes can be persuaded that they need to create a new article, disambiguated, for their special sense of synergy. But I agree that it all looks a lot like a mistaken takeover by some version of
Synergetics, which has its own problems.
— jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 12:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the input. Indeed, if the IP behind these massive changes continues to fail to respond to these multiple issues, I suggest we do just that.
El_C 15:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Still no response from the author. ♫It's getting to the point♪El_C 06:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
If they respond, they can be reported there, and blocked. -
DVdm (
talk) 08:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Synergy. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I do not see any merit in the mentioning of "Synergists" in the Final Fantasy game. The description offers no indication that these characters have anything to do with the concept of synergy. I propose to remove it. I was going to edit but this is still semi-protected at the moment. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Technokratisch (
talk •
contribs) 12:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Please
sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See
Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
Yes, by all means be
wp:BOLD and remove it, mentioning the lack of sourcing and referring to the talk page in the edit summary. They can always put it back with a proper source. -
DVdm (
talk) 13:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)reply