Gusflaubert (talk | contribs) |
Optimering (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
[[User:Optimering|Optimering]] ([[User talk:Optimering|talk]]) 07:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
[[User:Optimering|Optimering]] ([[User talk:Optimering|talk]]) 07:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Several points: I reject your groundless accusations that I lack expertise or insight, the only symptom of which being that I disagree with you. As I have told you before 'elected administrators' have no special authority in these matters. As to 'exactly what you object to', In all cases, I object to your continuous references to Pedersen, his thesis, and links to his website, which appear to form the majority of your edits to Wikipedia. Let me ask straight out - Are you Pedersen? What is your connection with him? - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie#top|talk]]) 13:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
:Several points: I reject your groundless accusations that I lack expertise or insight, the only symptom of which being that I disagree with you. As I have told you before 'elected administrators' have no special authority in these matters. As to 'exactly what you object to', In all cases, I object to your continuous references to Pedersen, his thesis, and links to his website, which appear to form the majority of your edits to Wikipedia. Let me ask straight out - Are you Pedersen? What is your connection with him? - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie#top|talk]]) 13:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::If you have expertise in the field you have never expressed it in your arguments. You also leave articles in disarray, sometimes meaningless, after you remove text, which suggests you do not understand the context. [[Particle swarm optimization]] and [[differential evolution]] were in shambles before I edited them, the references you object to are included because I believe they are relevant to an encyclopedic article giving good coverage of the topic and its facets. If you feel the coverage of those references is biased or unbalanced then you should say so and follow regular Wikipedia procedure for building consensus. (Of course, I think the community will find it strange that you think e.g. mathematical facts are 'biased' or 'COI', as you did in [[Luus-Jaakola]].) As to my real identity I will remain anonymous and neither confirm or disconfirm, but you should know that [[WP:OUTING]] is strictly prohibited. Allow me to suggest that you recruit an independent and competent review board from academia if you have further concerns about the articles in question (hopefully this is already underway, but you can speed it up if you like.) You have never contributed anything constructive to those articles, you have never made sound arguments of your opinion, and our lengthy debate has been futile. For these reasons I will no longer discuss this with you. If you continue to delete text I will revert your edits. [[User:Optimering|Optimering]] ([[User talk:Optimering|talk]]) 07:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Reinforcement learning == |
== Reinforcement learning == |
Revision as of 07:31, 28 February 2011
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Project Management weblink
Dear MrOllie, I wrote you on the 17th January and unfortunately I haven't received an answer yet. I found my question in your "Archives 1". So I put it again, just in case you couldn't see it. I understand, you receive hundred of questions daily. This was my question last time: "please could you tell me why you delete the link I put with the practical tipps for a efficient Project Management? It is not a promotion, because they are tipps. For me, promotion is all the softwares that are in the "List of ERP software packages". Please, could you explain me, why these ERP vendors are allowed to be in Wikipedia if promotion is forbidden? Thank you very much for your time! 23:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)HumboldtKritiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumboldtKritiker (talk • contribs)" HumboldtKritiker (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC) HumboldtKritiker
- For one thing, this is the English wikipedia and your link was in German. (also, the word in english is 'tips', not 'tipps'. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Plain English Campaign Vandalism
these edits that you are undoing are being vandalised by Mike Young as he has a personal greivance with PEC please see his contributions Martinos155 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Even a stopped clock will be correct twice a day. It is not appropriate to link the plain english campaign on articles about every term they have criticized or every company they have awarded something to. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I havent i am undoing vandalism Martinos155 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you disputing facts on the Plain English Campaign page or putting back Libelous content by undoing edits Martinos155 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NLT before throwing around terms like 'Libelous' - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Try reading edits before undoing them Martinos155 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Times Newspaper have been contacted and never printed this story it is a rant on a blog...They are happy to make a Story out of it if you wish.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinos155 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Look through The Times archives and put in a cite Martinos155 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Pompeii 3D Models
I notice that you deleted the external link to 3D models of Pompeii on 12 January, but you entered no comments in the discussion page where the subject is up for discussion.
That discussion has been there for 2 months inviting people to comment, yet not one other person has raised any objection to the external link. Can you please provide comment in the discussion page as to why you believe it degrades the page to have a reference to the availability of 3D models of the city.
I note that there is an external link to "Pompeii on Google Streetview" which you (rightly) did not delete. That seems a bit contradictory given that they are both Google features. Pmolsen (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, Streetview is a google service which contains content created by google for the service. Your link is an open hosting site which hosts content submitted by you. We generally don't like to see people submitting links to youtube videos they have made, either. - MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess I am trying to isolate your actual objection to the link. The last time we discussed it back in October you said it was because the models required a plugin to view them. My point above was that so does Streetview, yet that link remains.
If your objection is solely that I have submitted the link, the models are not solely my work as indicated in the model descriptions. I have been working with various people on the project, including CyArk, archaeologists from the University of Virginia, Google and various others. I am sure that they would all be keen to see the link in place and would happily submit it, as the models greatly assist with visualisation of the site.
The model's scope is currently being expanded, at the request of the Italian Minister for Culture, in light of the recent building collapses (documented in the article.) He is keen to have an accurate digital representation to assist in reconstruction in the event of any future collapses. Google is organising the effort and CyArk will be assisting in the data collection process.
My discussion on the discussion page has been there for over two months now, inviting anyone who objects to the link to speak up. Nobody apart from yourself has voiced any objection. 27.32.45.81 (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ollie, I'm tom and we had some discussions on Synchronous Technology and stuff.
Are you on facebook? just created an account there so if you send me a link to yours I can add you up.
Tom Jenkins (reply) 10:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Ollie!
I am surprised that local unimodal sampling wasn't deleted, because it's junk and stinks of self-promotion (citing sections of an unpublished thesis from ... not Cambridge ....). I am unfamiliar with AFD, and couldn't find its archive discussion (at least not at the AFD page). Would you give me a pointer, please? Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I placed a proposed deletion tag on it. It has not yet been to AFD. - MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't have any PROD tag now. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Optimering removed it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- He tried to establish notability by stating (OR) that it is related to another method, for which he provided references. All but one reference were due to Luus, the other method's founder, and the remaining reference was an unpublished M.S. thesis. No references were provided for the method of Pedersen, apart from Pedersen's thesis. I removed what seems to be clearly OR, and I share your concerns about COI
- Would you review my edits, please? If you agree, then I wish that you would propose this article for deletion.
- Best regard, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Table of Contents of the Pedersen thesis (which Optimering has inserted in several articles) has striking similarities to the articles Optimering has written. A COI notice might also be appropriate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's been warned about COI several times. At least he isn't adding external links to Pedersen's web site everywhere he can any more. - MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I reminded him of 4 (my rough count) COI and OR warnings. We concluded a related discussion on my talk page today, which may interest you. He has made some constructive and non-tendentious edits in the last days, and I hope all concerns may now be laid to rest. In my less charitable moments, I remember the saying that it is rare for a tiger to change its spots .... Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 13:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's been warned about COI several times. At least he isn't adding external links to Pedersen's web site everywhere he can any more. - MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Table of Contents of the Pedersen thesis (which Optimering has inserted in several articles) has striking similarities to the articles Optimering has written. A COI notice might also be appropriate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Optimering removed it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't have any PROD tag now. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are several derogatory remarks made here about real people, universities, etc. Please read WP:No personal attacks and focus on content. Optimering (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Independent and competent review underway
We have been in an ongoing dispute about me inserting references to certain work and you continually removing them. In one of those articles I can easily spot several blatant self-promotions by various authors that you have not removed. So it is clear that you have targeted me specifically rather than making a general cleanup. You have on several occasions deleted text/references I wrote that made the remaining context incomprehensible (left it 'dangling'.)
While you are essentially accusing me of WP:Tendentious editing I am accusing you of the same, because you are not observing the proper consensus reaching procedure for Wikipedia, see e.g. WP:CONSENSUS. You have generally been curt and discourteous when I have tried to reach consensus with you on different matters. I can also see from your talk page that numerous editors on Wikipedia are intimidated by you and are under the impression that you are an elected administrator with authority, which you are not, but you do nothing to dispel their fear of you.
In the case of our dispute over certain references I am under the impression that you have no expertise on the subject at all, so you should instead tag the sections you have concerns about with Template:NPOV language or similar and expand on your concerns in the talk page. Otherwise it is difficult for me and others to know exactly what you object to and it is hence difficult to improve the text. As for me inserting certain references in one or more articles is not WP:COI if it is relevant and unbiased. That you believe I have a personal connection with certain author(s) does not by itself make it biased. I have connections with several reseachers and have also inserted references I actually disagree with but should have proper coverage in a neutral and balanced encyclopedic article. If I have failed on certain points then please tag the section and detail your concerns in the talk page. You may also want to study WP:NPOVT.
I have asked User:Ruud Koot if he or another elected administrator would care to try and recruit outside experts by contacting e.g. journal editors/reviewers in those research fields, so we can get a competent and independent review of the articles, which I will then accept and hope you will too. Until then I ask that you please follow proper procedure and tag where you have concerns but no actual insight.
Optimering (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Several points: I reject your groundless accusations that I lack expertise or insight, the only symptom of which being that I disagree with you. As I have told you before 'elected administrators' have no special authority in these matters. As to 'exactly what you object to', In all cases, I object to your continuous references to Pedersen, his thesis, and links to his website, which appear to form the majority of your edits to Wikipedia. Let me ask straight out - Are you Pedersen? What is your connection with him? - MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you have expertise in the field you have never expressed it in your arguments. You also leave articles in disarray, sometimes meaningless, after you remove text, which suggests you do not understand the context. Particle swarm optimization and differential evolution were in shambles before I edited them, the references you object to are included because I believe they are relevant to an encyclopedic article giving good coverage of the topic and its facets. If you feel the coverage of those references is biased or unbalanced then you should say so and follow regular Wikipedia procedure for building consensus. (Of course, I think the community will find it strange that you think e.g. mathematical facts are 'biased' or 'COI', as you did in Luus-Jaakola.) As to my real identity I will remain anonymous and neither confirm or disconfirm, but you should know that WP:OUTING is strictly prohibited. Allow me to suggest that you recruit an independent and competent review board from academia if you have further concerns about the articles in question (hopefully this is already underway, but you can speed it up if you like.) You have never contributed anything constructive to those articles, you have never made sound arguments of your opinion, and our lengthy debate has been futile. For these reasons I will no longer discuss this with you. If you continue to delete text I will revert your edits. Optimering (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Reinforcement learning
Hi,
Would you please check the discussion page of the RL page?
I do care about this page, because this is a major part of my research.
However, I will not add or remove anything because you have changed at least twice my edits and I do not wish to interfere any further. But it bothers me a bit that we have (again) at least one random reference (at least what I think is a random, probably self-promoting reference) appearing on this page.
As to the reference to my book which you removed. Note that when I have edited this page, I have thoroughly cleaned the whole article up to my best knowledge. Also, I have added references to all the other books that I knew of. Thus I felt that adding a reference to my book would not be inadequate at all. I still do not feel that what I did was COI editing and so I was puzzled when you removed this reference. However, you have certainly must have done your homework researching me and so you know it better than me when to remove a reference. Anyhow..
Have a good day, - Csaba Szepi (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work on the page. If you see what you believe are self promotional references there, feel free to remove them or to raise the issue on the article's talk page, but you should not add your own book as well. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Links removed
Dear MrOllie,
The few links I added have been removed because someone arbitrarily decided they were spam. If Wikipedia is to be a useful resource, it should allow helpful links to be added, especially for non-profit organizations. In this instance, the organization I added provides real help to teenage victims of bullying. Listing it as a resource is for informational, not advertising purposes.
Most articles do have links at the bottom of the page. Please explain to me who decides what stays or goes and why. I was under the impression that Wikipedia operates under neutral and unbiased guidelines.
Thank you.
Gusflaubert (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- You can find guidelines on link inclusion at Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Spam, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There are many, many organizations that help people that could be linked on Wikipedia, but we do not make it a practice to link them, as there is no fair way to determine what should be linked. Where we do link them, they are generally established organizations that have coverage in multiple reliable sources, not websites that were set up in the last year or so. - MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Gusflaubert (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your prompt and concise reply. I do understand what you are saying and the endeavor to keep Wikipedia scholarly. I will submit the links again once they meet the criteria for inclusion and hope there won't be any opposition when I do.
˜˜˜˜