User talk:MrOllie

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

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!

MLOps

Hi! Why was the MLOPs page reverted as user 103.70.199.52 suggested? The included paper is very popular in the MLOps community on LinkedIn and has already gained multiple citations. It is a great overview and should be used there as it provides a solid definition of the term. As an MLOps expert, I would ask you to please look into that carefully. 185.124.144.98 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Popularity on social media is not a reason to include something here, especially not something from an unreliable source like arxiv. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is a well-cited arXiv paper with a rigour methodology less worth than a towardsdatascience article (which is listed in the sources)? 185.124.144.98 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The first section of the article seems outdated:

- there is one blog post on AI trends from 2018, that is not retrievable anymore

- there is one Gartner study from 2020, that has been archived by Gartner themselves and is not retrievable anymore

The discipline evolves and the recent paper seems to provide a solid definition that was already discussed lengthy in the MLOps community on Twitter and LinkedIn. 2003:EE:1705:39AB:7C96:27A:D5AE:D172 (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, that something is popular on social media has nothing to do with Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, the first section of the article seems outdated:

- there is one blog post on AI trends from 2018, that is not retrievable anymore

- there is one Gartner study from 2020, that has been archived by Gartner themselves and is not retrievable anymore

Wikipedia should be a trusted resource. Outdated, non-scientific information and articles, that have been withdrawn by authors themselves do not fulfil that criterion. 85.195.241.170 (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I am entering the discussion here: I believe the current version of the Wiki article does neither provide a good definition of MLOps nor does it give an adequate overview of the topic. Including the definition from the mentioned manuscript would significantly improve the Wiki article. From a methodological standpoint, deriving a definition from the review of 27 peer-reviewed articles, 11 tools and 8 interviews is sound and more reliable than the current version of the Wiki article (even though the manuscript does not seem to be peer-reviewed). However, many other Wiki articles are based on well-cited arXiv paper, so this should not be an exclusion criteria. Just my 2 cents. Nz2004 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue to promote arxiv preprints and other self published stuff, please stop cluttering my talk page with this. Am I being brigaded by people from this linkedin community or something? Very poor form if so. MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with you that Wikipedia is no place for self-promotion. In this case, however, I see a comprehensive definition of the term MLOPs. People are using Wikipedia to receive short and precise definitions and the mentioned manuscript provides one, which is derived in a rigor way. What is the argument, on a content level, to exclude that definition here? 2A00:1398:5:0:F4A4:5513:B840:3146 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use self published materials as citations. If there are other bad sources, that is not a reason to add more. I am done responding to this on my user talk page, which is not an appropriate venue for this discussion. Please take the hint and stop posting here, whoever you people all are. MrOllie (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is plain out wrong. On the very same Wiki page on MLOps multiple sources are self published materials like blog posts or slides. I can understand you do not want to continue the discussion, but, if you are not willing to discuss this on a content level, who is? Where can we have an honest, objective conversation about this? 80.137.220.210 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Hello, I'm VS6507. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Thought (disambiguation) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@VS6507, is English your first language? You are edit warring to keep in grammatical errors. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie It is not my first language. However, I speak English fluently, I would be aware of a major grammatical error if there was one. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's clearly not true. Feel free to ask someone else if you don't believe me. MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

What bit is not true? That I don't speak English fluently; in which case I would take it as a ad hominem personal offense. Orrrr that there is not a major grammatical error on the page? Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There is an obvious error of grammar in the sentence you are edit warring back into the article, which you are clearly unable to recognize. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

As someone who is a native English speaker and as I suppose interested in this field of science you appear to have a very low frustration tolerance. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have asked someone about a potential major error of grammar, and they were not able to see it. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 19:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, another editor did manage to see it and has reverted, so I think we're done here. MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@VS6507, an apology would be appropriate now. --Serols (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverting

Why did you undo revision 1097729680? My intention was to contribute, not to vandalize or self-advertise. 186.137.76.153 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a list of software that already has a Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

European Association of Distance Teaching Universities

I have added information about the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities in Distance education. Is a new article about it better? --Tiberio Feliz 00:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfeliz (talk • contribs)

You keep adding promotional text about that organization. Are you associated with it in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)