::::::: Interesting argumentation from a person wanting to erase article about method currently used by nearly everybody (and personally insulting me still without giving any specific argument) - does it apply to every scientific article? Generally there is a problem with competent authors for specialist articles - often the best person to create such initial article is the author of given method gaining popularity - writing in objective and accessible way, then others should improve it - like it has happened here. And generally scientists have responsibility to criticize or promote what needs it in their area of expertise, as there are no better persons to do that - no mater who is the author: scientists need to be objective, and I do my best for that. And Wikipedia is not a place for anonymous personal attacks: you could introduce and argument in those different places instead. [[User:Jarek Duda|Jarek Duda]] ([[User talk:Jarek Duda|talk]]) 12:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
::::::: Interesting argumentation from a person wanting to erase article about method currently used by nearly everybody (and personally insulting me still without giving any specific argument) - does it apply to every scientific article? Generally there is a problem with competent authors for specialist articles - often the best person to create such initial article is the author of given method gaining popularity - writing in objective and accessible way, then others should improve it - like it has happened here. And generally scientists have responsibility to criticize or promote what needs it in their area of expertise, as there are no better persons to do that - no mater who is the author: scientists need to be objective, and I do my best for that. And Wikipedia is not a place for anonymous personal attacks: you could introduce and argument in those different places instead. [[User:Jarek Duda|Jarek Duda]] ([[User talk:Jarek Duda|talk]]) 12:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
:::::::: I disagree. If everyone was to do what you are doing, any PhD student would be writing wikipedia articles about their current papers, while specifically mentioning their name in the introductory sentence ("Asymmetric numeral systems (ANS)[1] is a family of entropy encoding methods introduced by Jarosław (Jarek) Duda[2] from Jagiellonian University") as if it's a milestone in the field. It's blatantly obvious what you are doing. It's amazing that you would think other people are stupid enough to buy the above paragraph of "competent authors for specialist articles", "writing in objective and accessible way", "scientists need to be objective". I've read the discussion you linked and you've been called out for misunderstanding what wikipedia is before. It's not a platform to promote your papers. Content needs to be relevant for wikipedia. I think you are abusing wikipedia for your personal promotion (and feigning injury when people mention this). [[Special:Contributions/92.193.70.49|92.193.70.49]] ([[User talk:92.193.70.49|talk]]) 10:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Revision as of 10:05, 2 November 2018
This article was nominated for deletion on December 16 2007. The result of the discussion was delete.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Jarek Duda (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
The current explanation of tANS is scarce, I see someone has added enigmatic example from Andrew Polar article. I have this diagram with example of complete process (used on encode.ru, then https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04662 ) - it can be used if isn't too complex.
This addition also talks about tANS for adaptive compression - the only adaptive ANS I am aware of use rANS variant (LZNA, LZA), as tANS would require rebuilding the tables. And maybe general remarks could be taken to the "Remarks" section?
Example of generation of tANS tables and applying them for stream decoding for m = 3 size alphabet and L = 16 states.
Hi Michael, thanks for the comment and a dozen of papers about Huffman coding. Your removing information about their modern alternatives from Huffman Wikipedia article will not change the fact that authors of data compressors now choose more efficient methods instead - maybe it is time to move on from this defense of your articles, and work on something people will use. All the best. Jarek Duda (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So how to defend from someone trying to anonymously vandalize to defend own specialty from modern alternatives, like calling crackpottery a method now used to encode data by users of e.g. Apple, Facebook, Linux? He has dominated Huffman coding article, we had a long fight about it I finally gave up - he removed examples of its suboptimality and ways it is now repaired - leaving only mysterious "However, although optimal among methods encoding symbols separately, Huffman coding is not always optimal among all compression methods". In contrast, the only situation it is optimal is generic: uncorrelated sequence with power of 1/2 probabilities. Jarek Duda (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could have patented ANS and be rich now, instead I have decided to leave it free as it means global savings we all use now - finally the only I got for ANS are nasty relations with Google. And additionally I need to fight for access to objective information about currently used methods with a guy who stayed in the past and cannot move on - please give me a break. Jarek Duda (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, it seems to me that both of you have conflict of interest (see WP:COI), and should not edit these articles at all. Second, by revealing the name of an anonymous editor here you violate the outing policy. Retimuko (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly haven't touched ANS article since its creation, and it would be great if someone competent and objective improve it. I also haven't touched Huffman article for years - which currently is not objective: undermines weaknesses and silence currently used alternatives, due to this nonobjective person pursuing personal interests - whose career depends on people seeing Huffman as the only way. It should be repaired by someone objective and locked from this person. My apologies for revealing personal information - you can remove above discussion to repair it. Jarek Duda (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding revealing personal information being against policy, notice that mine was in response to his using my personal information - so what is the proper defense from anonymous personal attack? I don't have doubts about its authorship - we have our history and he is probably the last person trying to erase information about weaknesses and alternatives of Huffman. Jarek Duda (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For your information I'm not "Michael". I have just noticed your frequent questionable posts on reddit and stackexchange (reeking of crackpottery), which lead me to this (which was immediately clear can only be a self-authored) article and ultimately the talk section. No one has revealed your personal information but yourself given that you are quoting yourself in the article and you're using your actual name as your username (to create the article in the first place). So are we going to write wikipedia article now about every paper we publish?. 92.193.26.245 (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the discussion you linked, it appears more people have a problem with people using wikipedia to promote their own work and push their status. 92.193.26.245 (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting argumentation from a person wanting to erase article about method currently used by nearly everybody (and personally insulting me still without giving any specific argument) - does it apply to every scientific article? Generally there is a problem with competent authors for specialist articles - often the best person to create such initial article is the author of given method gaining popularity - writing in objective and accessible way, then others should improve it - like it has happened here. And generally scientists have responsibility to criticize or promote what needs it in their area of expertise, as there are no better persons to do that - no mater who is the author: scientists need to be objective, and I do my best for that. And Wikipedia is not a place for anonymous personal attacks: you could introduce and argument in those different places instead. Jarek Duda (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If everyone was to do what you are doing, any PhD student would be writing wikipedia articles about their current papers, while specifically mentioning their name in the introductory sentence ("Asymmetric numeral systems (ANS)[1] is a family of entropy encoding methods introduced by Jarosław (Jarek) Duda[2] from Jagiellonian University") as if it's a milestone in the field. It's blatantly obvious what you are doing. It's amazing that you would think other people are stupid enough to buy the above paragraph of "competent authors for specialist articles", "writing in objective and accessible way", "scientists need to be objective". I've read the discussion you linked and you've been called out for misunderstanding what wikipedia is before. It's not a platform to promote your papers. Content needs to be relevant for wikipedia. I think you are abusing wikipedia for your personal promotion (and feigning injury when people mention this). 92.193.70.49 (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
