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!

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

J. Hutton Pulitizer

Hello,

You reverted the recent creation of a page for the public figure J. Hutton Pulitizer, claiming the article was "blatantly promotional." Can you please cite your concerns so that this change can be reverted? Wikipedia itself mentions on the now non-existent page that, "It is a topic more specific than currently provided on the target page or section of that page, and so a subject that may be suitable for expansion in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of notable people."

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loltardo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loltardo, It was full of promotional language (' highly active technology start-up founder'), ('prolific inventor'), ('11 billion devices utilizing his vast patent portfolio') are just a few examples. More importantly it had zero independent biographical sources. IMDB is not a usable source at all (its bios are written by the subjects), and the rest of the sourcing was either similarly unreliable or trivial coverage. It did not meet Wikipedia's minimum notability requirements. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Document Classification

Hi MrOllie, the current article summarizes text-based (NLP) and not image-based (Computer Vision) classification techniques. So I added the research if Computer Vision does add value to the latest NLP classification techniques. Our research shows that visual elements add accuracy to document classification tasks. This was the reason to link the page. What can I do to solve your request "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia."?

Computer Vision does add additional accuracy to purely text-baxed classification of documents by taking into account visual illustrations in documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiaiwiki (talk • contribs)

We do not use advertising materials such as vendor blogs as sources on Wikipedia. You can 'solve my request' by not adding links to vendors to Wikipedia in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article "biological immortality"

Hello,

I would like to thank you for deleting my versions on the page "biological immortality" that aren't well done because of source-citing problems. However, I think deleting many information (it wasn't me who added those informations) isn't constructive since they are verified and well-cited articles. This will only make the page less informative for readers. Thus I revocated that last version, please talk here if you need any discussions.

Thanks, Max Exon (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Max[reply]

Please have a read of WP:MEDRS, which outlines minimal sourcing standards for biomedical information on Wikipedia. If something is cited only to single primary studies, animal studies, or press releases, it is not 'verified and well-cited'. - MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:I read the article WP:MEDRS, and thus I agree that some informations had to be deleted, I already did that in the most recent version. Nevertheless please consider that an information that you deleted was published on Nature, one among the biggest science journals (not primary study) and thus it was indeed verified.

Thanks, Max Exon (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Max[reply]

Digital twin

regarding the change to Digital Twin Article: I am Sergio d'Arpa and I founded the first clinic in the world that uses digital twins.

My clinic has no concierge or surgery room, it has only been collecting patient data for over three years to build digital twin. The our main activities is digital twin.

In the Wikipedia entry there is not link to my clinic, to my blog or to other advertising link.

The current references are articles I wrote for a telephone company (Tiscali) and on a site of a national association on digital culture (Assodigitale).

I have invested more money for studies how use of digital twin in RCT Randomized Clinical Trial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.31.34.27 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not for self promotion. You should not be adding mentions of yourself to Wikipedia articles, particularly not based on sources you have written yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sychonic. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content with reference

in Unmanned_aerial_vehicle you are trying to remove a content with 3 references. instead of removing the content please revise the references or remove inappropriate references. please refer to : Wikipedia:Content_removal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.56.113.145 (talk • contribs)

Please refer to WP:UNDUE, we need some indication that someone other than Darvishpoor (is that you?) has used this system of classification. See also WP:3RR, as you are now in breach of the rules on edit warring. You should stop making the same change over and over and establish a consensus in favor of inclusion on the article's talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided two other references(5 in total) for you, I wasn't aware of primary or secondary references, please take care about references, while I'm pretty sure about the content but I can't provide any reference instead of scientific papers (which most of them are not open access and you should pay to access, but all of them are published in high-rank journal[progress in aerospace sciences, impact factor~9]).

I send the references again: 1-https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376042120301068 (the content is taken from this ref, please refer to these figures taken from this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Different-categories-of-UASs_fig88_349204469, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Classification-of-UASs_fig1_349204469, but I'm sure that similar classifications is used by others as well [in fact this is a completely standard and accepted classification and I was surprised when I couldn't find it in the page, I can also provide some references for each part of that classification], for example two followings:)

2-https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278593412_A_Review_on_the_Platform_Design_Dynamic_Modeling_and_Control_of_Hybrid_UAVs (originally this: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7152365)

3-https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316673697_Classifications_applications_and_design_challenges_of_drones_A_review(originally this: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2017.04.003 and this open access figure from the paper: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Different-types-of-air-drones_fig1_316673697)

Although I'm pretty sure that this is a standard classification but I couldn't find it exactly in any other reference instead of [1], but you can find it partially in [2] and [3]. I will not change it again, please take care of it by yourself, if the above mentioned references are enough please keep it, because I'm sure it's comprehensive, standard, accepted, helpful and with reliable reference, but if it's not appropriate based on Wikipedia's rules, you know...it's OK.

note 1: other classifications in the page including: 1-"UAVs typically fall into one of six functional categories (although multi-role airframe platforms are becoming more prevalent):" 2-"Vehicles can be categorized in terms of range/altitude. The following has been advanced[by whom?] as relevant at industry events such as ParcAberporth Unmanned Systems forum:" 3-"Classifications according to aircraft weight are quite simpler:" have no references. please take care about them as well.

note 2: no I'm not Prof. Darvishpoor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.56.113.145 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Screenings

Why did you remove my addition? I spend an hour on this. Your reason that this does not belong there does not make sense, I often see articles where trends/recent developments are added at the end of the introduction.
Even if you think my addition are on the wrong place, why did you completely remove it and not put it to the right place?
Why did you remove the new tool I added? There is another tool listed.

Jadzia2341 (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have seen other articles discussing recent developments in that way, that should also be removed. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for spreading the latest developments.
I don't think it added much to the article. The point of the article is to describe the process, not to highlight individual implementations that happened to be larger than others.
No, there isn't. There is a second external link which leads to a large database of tools. It is not a link that promotes a single tool.

- MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

Regarding point 3, that seems right, and I can accept that.

Regarding point 1, the site you referenced has the title "2.9 Wikipedia is not a newspaper". I fully agree with that. But if you read the four points Wikipedia lists there, none of them seem to apply here. Recent development are not news. These recent development took place over the past several years (several years is "recent" in science).

Regarding point 2: The site describes important methods and principles in virtual screenings. The scale of the screening is "method" actually, because it can dramatically improve the quality of the virtual screenings results in terms of potency and the true hit rate. These were 3 Nature paper I have listed as references, and even a News and Views article in Nature about this. This is a highly important aspect of virtual screenings, cause it helps to solve one of its biggest problems: false positives.

Jadzia2341 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]