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!

Question about COI on reproducibility for RecSys

Dear MrOllie,

I am writing this message because I have noticed that you removed some references related to reproducibility studies for recommender systems due to COI/refspam. While I am indeed one of the authors (and probably adding a second reference was excessive on my part) the first article was a significant contribution that was appreciated by the community, having won a "Best paper award" and received more than 160 citations. One could certainly discuss these issues without citing that paper, but the set of people investigating those issues is limited and it would still contain other of my coauthors. Furthermore, there has not been a reproducibility study of that nature in the RecSys field in several years, before several of the currently widely used techniques were introduced, so the remaining reference would be from more or less 10/15 years ago and discuss older approaches. For a field that was born in the '90s that is a lot of time.

So, I would like to ask if you think that a wider discussion incluiding other, maybe older, works would mitigate/address the COI problem. Including for the reproducibility crisis page (where I noticed some of the other examples are similarly referred to a single article).

I would also point out that on Matrix factorization (recommender systems), you lef the paper from Rendle, which confirms one specific result reported in our own study and then does further experimental inqury, however it is not in itself a wide reproducibility study so the previous part of the section would be without citation. I am not going to re-insert it so as not to create further problems.

Thank you

MaurizioFD (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I now noticed that there had been quite a few changes in the past related to those references in the recommender systems page, from various users which you reverted. I am sorry if I added to the mess. I suppose the issue was also they appeared in too many different places where a link to another page would have sufficed. MaurizioFD (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Inheritance (object-oriented programming)

Hey, thanks for cleaning up the Inheritance (object-oriented programming) article after all that mess was inserted! I tried to fix it a little, but your method was better. Perhaps if I'd had my coffee, I would've seen the simpler solution. Anyway, thanks again, and Happy New Year! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing External Link

Hi,

Thank you for your detailed message.

I have read your wiki page ,and I thought that, I have to update the same by adding the external link. I have only redirected to the well researched article (https://www.astuteanalytica.com/industry-report/waste-management-market) which includes the definition of Waste Management along with the COVID and Asia Pacific analysis. Please read the link and allow me to add this on your page, it will be useful for readers. Please suggest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon7860923 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's linkspam. - MrOllie (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to advice

Sorry, I did not realize that my edits on QAnon would be considered 'disruptive' - how should I have approached them? Jaydubyah43 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You must edit based only on what is in reliable sources. You must not simply add your own personal feelings or personal knowledge to articles. - MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Added adaptation Death in Venice

Thank you for your reply now archived. My apologies for not responding earlier than this. I of course accept your points about self-promotion, but your added comment about existence not being sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia unfortunately confirms my suspicion that facts are less important than the person inserting them - or in your case - censoring them. I am aware that another individual posted similar facts at some point last year, that were also deleted. I am not sure if you were responsible for this. That incident concerns me because it seems that an important contribution to the topic - a view on Death in Venice from Tadzio's point of view, which, to my knowledge has not been attempted elsewhere, and which has received favourable comment on print, stage and audio versions - cannot now be placed on Wikipedia. If I submit the topic; you will delete it. If another person submits it; you or another person will delete it - I presume because you will suspect me of having initiated the post. That might then lead to the situation where it could never be posted, no matter how important the topic is or how often it is cited / referred to in sources outside Wikipedia. For my own satisfaction, therefore, I would appreciate your informing me, under what condition can this kind of information be published without it being censored by you or another editor? Is it a question of (a) who posts the information? or (b) a minimum number of copies of a book / performances of a play / a minimum film budget whatever? Or am I right in suspecting that once deleted, always deleted on Wikipedia? omotion. With thanks in advance for your reply. (Finally - your comments about self-promotion are ironic given that - to give just one example - the entry on Wonder Woman (2017 film) is nothing more or less than promotion by the film company with press releases quoted word for word for much of the article. Perhaps I should take a leaf out of your book and delete all that extraneous material to save you the trouble of doing so.) idiomistIdiomist (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not about you personally (or this other person that you asked to add this for you), it is about the coverage in independent sourcing per WP:UNDUE. What percentage of independent writing that meet's Wikipedia's sourcing requirements (academic works) about Death in Venice mentions your adaptation? It is so low that it simply does not belong on the article. It has nothing to do with budget. It is normal that you take pride in your own work, but this is why you aren't able to judge this objectively, and this is why the COI guidelines so discourage self promotion. Re: blanking content from Wonder Woman, see WP:POINT. - MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but your argument seems to keep shifting. a) you suddenly bring in academic works in citing my adaptations - but references to other adapted works on Death in Venice do not have academic references - which makes your point irrelevant. b) incidentally my initial adaptation is referred to Gregory Woods' A History of Gay Literature, publ 1998, although I did not refer to that in my posting - I thought (stupidly, as it turns out) that the existence of the book I wrote from a publisher that is already on Wikipedia was more important than the secondary reference. c) I note that you allow works such as "Ehrhard Bahr: "Der Tod in Venedig, Erläuterungen und Dokumente." Reclam, Stuttgart 1991 and Philip Kitcher, Deaths in Venice: The Cases of Gustav von Aschenbach. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013 to be cited without confirmation as to their worth. (These are just two of many such examples across Wikipedia) d) the later adaptations are referred to online by organisations / individuals I have no connection with - I had (again stupidly, it seems) thought that since other entries are accepted with online references, so might mine be. e) You say that the independent writing "is so low that it simply does not belong on the article". I ask again - what level of independent writing - and how do you accept that it is independent - would you consider necessary for the information to be included. f) I regret that my perusal of the link you gave me to Wonder Woman does not explain why copying a press release is not considered promotion. Again it must be my stupidity that allows that content. g) If I were really interested in self-promotion I would flood Wikipedia through my own name and others with useless information about the dozens of works I have written / produced. I only wished to add three (Death in Venice / Volpone and Hadrian VII) items because my writing on these topics is original, thought-provoking and has provoked a positive response from readers / audiences.

Because your statements are either vague or contradict the practice I see, I can only come to the conclusion that you have a capricious attitude and wish to censor minor points of information that are not in themselves of world-shattering importance but which do throw at least a little extra light on the topics mentioned. The reasons you give keep shifting. I don't want to waste your time and I certainly don't want to waste my time on this discussion, but if instead of vague and sometimes groundless statements you could state under exactly what conditions you would allow the information to be published, then I would be happy for both of us to move on to more important things.

idiomistIdiomist (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Added reference to: What is Computational Intelligence and where is it going?

>Hello, Wduch. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers. Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

WD: Artificial Intelligence entry contains large number of articles that are not of the review type. Unfortunately relations between computational intelligence (CI) and AI are difficult to find in review literature. I have cited the only article that contains detailed discussion how CI and AI should be defined and how they are related. It is easy to check that Springer book cited is a trusted resource. So I believe that it contributes to the quality of this entry.

Anyway, thank you for keeping Wikipedia a valuable resource. Sincerely,

Prof. Włodzisław Duch Fellow, International Neural Network Society, Past President, European Neural Network Society Head, Neuroinformatics and Artificial Intelligence Group, Center of Excellence, and Neurocognitive Laboratory, CMIT. Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland Google: Wlodzislaw Duch