User talk:Pat grenier

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jean-Philippe de Lespinay. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! mabdul 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Expert systems

Hello Pat, I left a message about your recent edits to Expert systems on the article talk page. I think you should have a look to avoid having your edits undone. Cheers, pgr94 (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material in Expert systems

Please do not delete referenced and apparently accurate material. The Knowedge Engineering section in Expert system was referenced and appeared to be accurate. pgr94 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary and secondary sources

Hello Pat,

May I draw your attention to this guideline: WP:SECONDARY (or in French: [1]) which explains how some sources are better than others. Textbooks and review articles are the preferred sources. Blogs and opinion pieces should be avoided.

It would also be good if you could use edit summaries to explain your changes: "It is good practice to fill in the Edit summary field, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit." WP:SUMMARY [2]

Thanks. pgr94 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello pgr94,

Sorry, I didn't find the "Edit summary field"...

OK about sources. I will correct.

Here are my intention by modifying this article :

1) to show European research and mainly French one which was very important

2) show a part of the history of expert systems that it did not speak (Guru, PC +, Nexpert Object, Pandora, Vth generation, etc.)

3) make the article clear and interesting

4) show there is an history between 1960 and to day, and steady progress

5) show that the reputation of expert systems became poor, that research is no more interested although the goals set at the beginning, very ambitious, have been achieved (reasoning, natural language, conversational, explanations, contradiction detection).

6) show that computing today is not using the advances made in expert system technology although it badly needs it, by ignorance of the past success of this technology.

Today, I will work on the history to show the steady progess and to show why the expert system reputation became very low: AI and expert systems can be implemented only by computer scientists, and more expensive than the others. It is not considered a success by the market. In the collective unconscious, give intelligence to a computer is allow users to communicate directly with him, without computer scientists. Like the robot Hal of "2001, A Space Odyssey." (1968).

Finally, I would show that if French success in the United States is not known, it is because the French academics, who control all channels of scientific publication in France, have always refused to speak, even once, about Jean-Philippe de Lespinay's Maieutique. So there was in France two types of communication: private communication that consistently praised La Maieutique and its results in business, and public communication that officially ignored it and informally went to war against its inventor so that this innovation remain ignored. But perhaps this information is not politically correct ? Tell me please.

There is the big problem in AI: AI and expert system research is made by computer scientists. But, the goal of AI is to operate computer without them. When an AI research succeeds, computer scientists do not want to talk about it to not commit suicide.... Is it politically correct to tell it in Wikipedia ? Tell me please.Pat grenier (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted my expert system history. Why ?Pat grenier (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, I reverted your history section because

the sources were of poor quality (there are many textbooks and survey articles that cover this area),
it covered subjects in detail that are already covered in other articles and
it did not represent a neutral assessment of the field.

If you are attempting to give an impartial view of the field based on good sources, the article has plenty of room for improvement and your contributions are very welcome. If you are looking to promote Lespinay's work and/or products, Wikipedia is the wrong place. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promoting a point of view. I have already pointed you to guidelines written in French that explain this in detail.

Regarding French academics controlling channels of scientific publication, I'm sorry but Wikipedia is not the place to redress any perceived imbalance. You should investigate other channels. This subject was already discussed on Talk:Artificial intelligence. pgr94 (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello pgr94,

the current version of the history is totally incomplete. In history there are dates. The sentence "Three important factors led to the creation of modern rule-based expert systems: 1) production rules for modelling human problem solving, 2) separation of knowledge and inference, and 3) knowledge as the key to expertise.[36]" has no place in history section and it's a repetition. This current version does'nt talk about important tools (Guru, PC+, Nexpert Object, Intelligence Service, etc.) and about this flow of history to provide the public with expert systems generators. This current version does'nt speak about hundreds of facilities Maieutica (and T. Rex) in French companies, a reasoning expert system generator, the only real success in the history of expert systems, a form of expert system that anybody can test today via the Internet (with explanation and contradiction detection). The expert system history is not an american history. It happened something important elsewhere and it must be said.

About promotion of Lespinay's work, I agree with you. I know it is the constant risk in my text. But an encyclopedia must talk about this real part of history which saw the objectives defined by Minsky finally achieved, with the enthusiasm of the companies themselves, a unique case in the AI and expert system history ! I make effort to source every point of the story and avoid what can not be sourced. We need to get my text back, improving it if you want.Pat grenier (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you create a special page for me where I can prepare the history, with sources, and discuss it with you. When this page is good, you will transfer the section in the expert system article.Pat grenier (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, you can easily create a space for yourself. On wikipedia they are called "user subpages" (see WP:USERSUBPAGE). You could for example create User:Pat grenier/Expert system.

I definitely agree Expert systems should not be a US-based article unless the history is demonstrably US-centric. If you have some good secondary sources (textbooks, peer-reviewed review articles) that cover expert systems history, then this would be a good start. pgr94 (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello pgr94,

I finished the writing of history. Look here: User:Pat grenier/Expert system and tell me please what you think. By browsing through AI and expert systems history, I came to the conclusion that the greatest resarcher and inventor in this field is Jean-Philippe de Lespinay. He knew to talk about AI more clearly than many, and he did not stop there: he invented the ultimate reasoning expert system, a form of natural language programming, an operational conversational, an automatic generation of experts system from simple decision grids (Miao, Flow Logic). Then he sold and installed hundreds of expert systems in companies not in laboratories, where they were used daily by people sometimes not familiar with computers. At last he invented Tiara, the voice programming by reasoning expert system. No IA researcher has done so much and so varied. He is the only one who gave reality to AI.Pat grenier (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags without resolving the problem

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Expert system, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. pgr94 (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pgr94, I don't understand. I removed nothing. I only added a paragraph to "Disadvantages". Can you explain your comment ? More importantly, I see that you quickly modify my new changes but you do not give your opinion on the new version of History I propose. Why? If you do not answer, I'll put it in the article.

You have removed tags several times while editing this article without giving any explanation. Tags are used to highlight problems with an article and an explanation why the tag is no longer needed is highly recommended. Here is an example: [3] pgr94 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. It's really minor ! Sorry, I don't know to access to edit summary and work into it. I can only comment in this page or in the talk page of the article.

But, I note you still have not answered my question about history...

I recommend you make smaller changes until you are familiar with how Wikipedia works. The main problem is your use of sources. Pop science magazines are not appropriate. You should be using expert system textbooks and reviews in respected journals. Again, see WP:RS. Also, just adding a link to a website is not sufficient. Please see WP:BURL. pgr94 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your comment is too vague for me. Do you think my history version is not sourced enough ? He tells the truth of what happened on the field and in companies, sourced by the most important newspapers of France ! Some of which specialized in expert system and AI. Academic sources, it's only for theory. They ignore what is happening in the real world. I am going to transfer my page History in the Expert System article and then you show me where you think there is a lack of sources from "respected journals". In that case, I will modify it. Pat grenier (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I recommend you slow down. Learn how Wikipedia works by making small changes. Your opinion or mine do not count, on Wikipedia you need to follow WP:RS. pgr94 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This time you are clear ;) I will proceed slowly.Pat grenier (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Dear Pat Grenier, I found our recent interactions about the Expert system article very similar to incidents on the French Wikipedia [4] I have therefore asked Wikipedia admins to check for Sockpuppetry [5] If you are de Lespinay, then you wrote the article about yourself Jean-Philippe de Lespinay which is a clear conflict of interest. If you are not de Lespinay, I apologise in advance, but I hope you will see the similarities and cause for concern. pgr94 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear pgr94, for the first time you talk to me and cordially ! It is very pleasant for me to not work with strangers in the indifference. For your information, we were 4 persons to work on Jean-Philippe de Lespinay's article, we are three for expert system history and I'm not Jean-Philippe_de_Lespinay. I don't see where you can find "similarity" between our relationships and those between Wikipedia France and Lespinay. You are polite, honest and professional, not them. Anyway, I don't understand your position about an eventual "conflict of interest". The same truth would be admissible if it is written by me and not if it is written by Lespinay?

For the record, you must know that when Lespinay wrote an article about Maieutica on French Wikipedia (about 2007), a major innovation that he made in 1990, described in the media, one young academic erased totally the article, without warning and without a word! At each new attempt the article was deleted again by the same academic, without a word of explanation. Academics who "administrate" the category AI, although they admit to themselves that the AI article was zero and had to be redone, also cleared each modifications he did in IA and expert system articles, even parts which did not speak about him ! Articles were back as they were before! Do you act the same way?Pat grenier (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just talk to you about a French academic who erased all what Lespinay wrote in Wikipedia. He came back. His pseudo is Sylenius, he is a young academic untrained in AI. He came in order to insult me : "We have already wasted enough time not to repeat the debate of 2007. Visionary who believes he invented the AI by itself". Other point: this discussion is in a page I ignored, not in my talk page or in the article talk page, someone suggesting outright to delete our article! Pat grenier (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

admissibility banner

Mr Grenier, when you scrap a banner on a WP page, you should state your arguments for doing it in the discussion page or at least in the summary of the change. Please, explain why the arguments for inserting it were wrong. Lanredec (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pgr94, did you ask the same thing to Lanredec ? I answered him (in francophone Wikipedia) and demonstrate his mistakes. And please, read below. Pat grenier (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No demonstration. Only an ad hominem. Still waiting answer. Lanredec (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear pgr94,

I laughed when you said to French officials Wikipedia I "bulldozerized" the section expert system ! I hope you understand that I could not do otherwise, the history would have ended abruptly for no reason. Besides, you'll notice that I did not speak about Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, since you recommanded me to "slow down". Although there are hundreds of pages that talk about him and his invention in newspapers and on the Web between 1986 and 2011.

Since you like bulldozers, you probably noticed the fantastic demolition company started by Wikipedia French officials against our two articles, perpetrated by a crowd of officials. Someone has erased half of our Maieutics article and 3 / 4 of references to achieve to conclude it is zero and propose its deletion (you can easily check this). I talked to Lespinay, it was exactly the same agression in 2008 against him ! I suffer from this situation. And Lespinay too. His invention, it is the end of the computer scientists, then they fight in order to everyone ignore it, even if it is a French invention which made history between 1986 and 1996.

You know well Prolog, you surely noticed the relevance of additions to expert system article. You are a doctor of philosophy, you surely noticed the interest of a computer innovation which executes the Socrates maieutics, prooving it was a very good theory. You know perfectly logic princips. You are also an academic, like them ...in fact I hope not like them ! If you like intelligence and truth, please, not be complicit of the french auto-demolition enterprise.

Can I rely on your objectivity ?

Pat grenier (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, Pat Grenier: follow Wikipedia's rules/guidelines and you'll be fine. This is what everyone is trying to tell you and/or Lespinay. Until now, you have chosen to ignore rules and suggestions from others and have more or less hijacked the article. I have no more time for this and will leave it to others to resolve. pgr94 (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand where we have "hijacked" the expert system article, with all the references to prove our words. You have still not said. But I understand you dont have the intention to make your own mind in this war against the team who work on this article. I am disappointed.Pat grenier (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm not Jean-Philippe de Lespinay ! We are 4 persons to collaborate on anglophone Wikipedia: Two contributors who speak good English, three familiar with AI. Please remember. Pat grenier (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One question: is it against the rules of wikipedia that we add in the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay a chapter about the 20 years of persecution he has suffered from the French establishment? Which is a common feature of great inventors? We will not talk of course (unfortunately) about persecution from the French Wikipedia. Pat grenier (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem as long as you have sources (not written by victim) accessible to any WP reader, and as long as you don't make them say what they dont. Lanredec (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Wonderful ! Pat grenier (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]