User talk:Doctorfree

Please leave messages at the bottom of this page.

Endomorphism

Howdy, I backed out your recent change to Endomorphism because it violated a few guidelines for wikipedia, WP:EXT and WP:COI. Roughly speaking, you should avoid adding links to external sites and avoid adding information about yourself or your friends.

Definitely do not link to external sites related to you personally, WP:EXT#Advertising and conflicts of interest.

You probably want to fix Lyapunov exponent as well -- perhaps just keep the mention of XScreenSaver, as an indication that Lyapunov exponents (or logistic equation, or chaos, or fractals) impact popular culture, such as screensavers.

Your User:Doctorfree/Campbell article seem good so far; it could probably be moved to the main article namespace already. You may want to include in the opening a clear assertion of notability (WP:N), but the article seems well referenced, and wikilinked, so it may not matter. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Afternoon Dr. Free

Very interesting collection of subjects in one brain, keep writing. Stratford LeoBC (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Web desktop

Left a message at the Talk:Web desktop. --Pmedema (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Deth Specula notability

I see that you've added a notability tag to the article on Deth Specula. I cited references from the New York Times, Newsweek, MediaCast, and other 3rd parties establishing notability. Specifically, the first live music concert with audio and video broadcast over the Internet. This, to me, seems to satisfy both the notability and citation requirements. Could you provide me with some better understanding of why you feel otherwise or how the article could be improved wrt notability? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'll refer to the Wikipedia Guidelines for notability of a band, you'll note that the reliability and verifiability of a source are certainly important, however the quality of a source is just as critical. The reputable sources you've provided are either self-promotional or are trivial in nature. Specifically, the references from New York Times and Newsweek both make a very brief mention of Deth Specula; neither article is in any way about the band or the event for which you claim notability. The references from the Deth Specula website are self-promotion and therefore do not qualify for notability. Finally, the MediaCast reference doesn't provide anything more than an improperly formatted and dead link.

My motivation for the notability tag is that I dislike Wikipedia clutter by non-notable sources. It is my intention, in reasonable time, to submit this article as an AfD. Ultimately, I hope that the lack of any real notability, notable references, or any other qualifying criteria for notability of a band will sway enough people that Deth Specula is non-notable and should be removed from Wikipedia. If you can provide any further information which would be a non-trivial reference and enough to convince me of Deth Specula's notability, I'll gladly refrain from moving forward with my intentions. —  X  S  G  04:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And, a note: I'm aware that I'm not a judge regarding notability. If you're unfamiliar with the AfD process, you'll find that it is generally fair; if it goes that far, you'll get the opportunity to make a case for notability. If you're confident that Deth Specula is notable, the AfD process shouldn't be a big deal. —  X  S  G  04:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion to the Talk:Deth Specula talk page.

Which is precisely where it belonged. Good work! —  X  S  G  03:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

COI

Howdy, It is fine to move the discussion to the article talk page, but the COI problems are only tangentially related to the endomorphism article. Let someone else add the links if they think they improve the article. I'll only talk about the COI problem here, so I am not talking about the future edits of the endomorphism article, just a general wikipedia thing.

I didn't respond earlier, basically because I cannot seem to respond in an encouraging way. I don't want to discourage you, since it seems like the majority of your edits are improving the encyclopedia. I mostly just hope that you yourself will recognize the conflict of interest.

There are many thousands of dissertations on endomorphisms (and many tens of thousands of journal articles). Many of them happen to be much more relevant than yours to the article, but it would not improve the encyclopedia to link them (except perhaps one or two of historical importance). On the other hand, from those dissertations it may make sense to link to an encyclopedia article on endomorphisms, so one might feel that a two-way link is a good idea. I think however that one is most likely to think this when it is one's own work being linked, and this is the danger of the conflict of interest. Whether you are right or wrong, hopefully it is clear that you are not applying your logic evenly to the entire landscape of endomorphism dissertations, and choosing precisely as many and which dissertations to link as would most benefit the encyclopedia. You might check how many of User:R.e.b.'s papers that user has linked into wikipedia articles, or User:David Eppstein or many of the other notable mathematicians who edit here. Some of their papers are linked of course, but by other editors. Wikipedia is not a vanity press, but if many editors add their own accomplishments to it, it becomes one in the eyes of the world. Notice that it does not matter if the editors themselves viewed wikipedia as a vanity press at the time. The opinion is formed elsewhere, and degrades the work of everyone who contributes. It does not matter whether those edits may have been objectively worthwhile, only that they present wikipedia as a sea of autobiography and self-promotion. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Yes, I could see how linking every single dissertation on endomorphisms would be inappropriate. I'm quite content to allow other editors to decide whether linking to either my dissertation or the endo software laboratory is appropriate. My main motivation for linking to my dissertation was due to the fact that it is largely a manual for the use of the software. It's the software which is really, in my opinion, relevant and it was this software laboratory exploring new algorithms for determining the basin boundaries of iterated endomorphisms that was at the heart of my dissertation.

At any rate, I do appreciate your assistance in helping me to better understand the Wikipedia guidelines and, in particular, COI. However, even with COI, there seems to be ample wiggle room. For instance, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies". So, it would seem that COI really comes down mostly to notability. Is a link to a software laboratory exploring iterated endomorphisms notable and does it conform to the content policies? I thought it was but, it seems, the question will be left to other editors to decide. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page. There is wiggle room, but no need to wiggle.

Thanks for rephrasing what the package does. I had tried previously to figure out where to put your contribution, but failed. I tried to put it at XScreensaver, but couldn't get it to fit. I would say that the software package is objectively notable, but not terribly relevant to the endomorphism article (which barely mentions their most common incarnation as square matrices! the article is just about the abstract nonsense category version, and such concrete things as the real plane are just not in the same theme). However, once you mentioned attractor basins and iterated functions it was much easier to find a decent first try: I added them to Attractor basin.

• I think iterated function system is in a different theme than your work?

I mean the words "endomorphism" and "iterated function system" are in some technical sense synonyms, but the connotations are so different, as can be seen in the articles about them. I tend to think "eigenvector" and "attractor basin" are basically synonyms (like the eigenvector of eigenvalue 1 for a nice markov process), but again different connotations. Let me know if the attractor basin text is wrong (feel free to fix it too, but I don't mind fixing my mistakes), and let me know if it is relevant to the the IFS article too. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree Attractor basin seems appropriate. Thanks for the leg work and a fruitful discussion. The "mathrec" package contains several programs I wrote to explore a variety of mathematical iterations. In addition to "endo" it includes "gasket" (generalized Serpinski gaskets) and "hop" (iterated systems of parametric equations) which arguably could be relevant to the Iterated function system article. However, there's nothing new in the IFS software included in mathrec and there is probably much better IFS software to link to. So, I wouldn't suggest linking to mathrec on the IFS article unless no other freely licensed and superior software can be found.

Thanks for the discussion and please feel free to continue to raise concerns wrt Wikipedia guidelines, style, content, etc. I'm thus far encouraged by people's willingness to work issues out in a polite and reasonable manner. Although at times it might seem tedious, in the end it seems justified and educational. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally found a good place for it. It was actually a bit of a thorn in my side that I had let it go so long, since I knew there had to be a simple way to include it. I had delayed because it felt stupid saying "let someone else do it" rather than saying "let me do it" (since I'm sure you are familiar with how long it takes "someone else" to do anything). At any rate, my thanks to you for working it out so smoothly. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

wikispot interwiki

Hi. Regarding Santa Cruz, California, the wiki that would need to be added to Interwiki is http://www.scruzwiki.org/, not wikispot. —  X  S  G  01:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Attack of the clue hammer

OK, I just noticed your full signature and why this just might have some bearing on the discussion at hand...--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i was a member of 86Open and served as the principal engineer on the (aborted) attempt at providing a reference libc to use in the generation of a binary that would run on all member vendor platforms. My work changed course due to several reasons but principally my employer's desire to be able to run Linux ELF binaries. Plus glibc was not very portable, difficult to scale down, and i got very little assistance from other members. However, my experience in this group can't very well be used by Wikipedia without introducing original research. We have to base the article (86Open for others interested in this) on published sources like the FAQ and LinuxToday articles. Those sources indicate that the "outcome" of 86Open was agreement to standardize on Linux ELF which, at the time, all vendors could run - some (FreeBSD and SCO) even claiming to be able to run Linux binaries faster than Linux on the same hardware! Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

award

		The Oklahoma Barnstar
		Awarded to Doctorfree for contributions to all things Enid, Oklahoma. Kiddo27 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doctorfree. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Ear#Request for assistance with Dave Zirin article.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Final warning for adding silly original research to rap song articles

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baby Got Back. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest discussing this on the talk page, as the content you are edit-warring to reinsert is clearly not a serious addition and you are making little attempt to establish consensus on the article's talk page. 3 reverts in 24 hours is a limit, not entitlement: I suggest making it clear that you intend to stop edit warring and discuss this constructively on the talk page, or an uninvolved admin may choose to block you for edit warring whether you've exceeded 3 reverts or not. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am seriously attempting to focus, as you suggest, on establishing consensus in the discussion on the talk page. However, I have yet to see any formal reason as to why the section in question is not encyclopedic. Is the onus on me and other editors to prove the section is encyclopedic or on others to show why it is not ? I guess I will have to go read the guidelines on this and reckon we will not arrive at consensus (given people's statements thus far) and either I will be snowballed or this will go into an escalated dispute. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is to discuss it constructively on the talk page and build consensus for acceptable content: while the section may have been accurate, that's not the only requirement: it was clearly intended to be humourous, and it's important to realise that wikipedia is a serious project. I would suggest shortening the section and removing the colourful ("humourous") language and sticking only to relevant information which benefits the reader, and proposing the section with any relevant adjustments on the talk page and seeking consensus for it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

World Entertainment War

Hiya! Your change yesterday, removing the information about their performance on the charts, was incorrect. Your edit summary indicated that the detail pertained to The Joint Chiefs. It did not. Please consult the linked citation if you have any further confusion about that point, as it states clearly which band the point pertains to. I'm putting it back. Cheers.duff 04:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You have completely rewritten the genesis of the band without citation and added new members, also without citation. The link you added citing the chart performance leads to a Joint Chiefs page, not World Entertainment War. I'm a bit perplexed as I have followed your changes to this page and most were beneficial and well done. So, I am assuming no malice on your part but either you or I are mixed up. Click that reference link http://www.thejointchiefsband.com/about.htm and tell me how that provides citation for a WEW chart performance. Also, I think we should discuss radical changes like how the band was formed and who was in the band prior to that sort of edit. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)