Jump to content

User talk:MrOllie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ethicalv (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 5 December 2012 (response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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!

"conflicts of interest"

Mr. Ollie: I have no idea about the software changes you refer to: I am not the person (or the Paul Oppenheimer: there are more than one) involved here. I have sent you and the management a calibrated defense of my attempt to have my books listed in at least the bibliographical sections of your articles on (a) the sonnet, (b) Peter Paul Rubens, (c) Machiavelli, and (d) guilt, in each of which I have published widely and well received books, to wit: The Birth of the Modern Mind: Self, Consciousness and the Invention of the Sonnet (Oxford University Press); Rubens: A Portrait (Cooper Square Press in the U.S., Duckworth in the U.K.); Machiavelli: A Life Beyond Ideology (Continuum); and Infinite Desire: A Guide to Modern Guilt (Duckworth in the U.K. and Madison Books in the U.S.) My long recognized well respected translation of the tales of Till Eulenspiegel, Till Eulenspiegel: His Adventures (Routledge, 2001), now in its fourth edition and extremely well reviewed in many places (including initially in The New Yorker), is likewise nowhere cited in your article on Till Eulenspiegel. To argue, indeed plead, that these contributions ought to be listed in any balanced treatment of these subjects hardly represents a "conflict of interest." What it in fact represents, and this especially as your articles on all these subjects now offer unbalanced and obsolete points of view, is an unwillingness to supply readers with respectable and fair as well as standard opportunities (all these books are widely cited in other scholarly reference sources). I urge you to reconsider your stance here and at least to allow the listing of these books. Their absence in your listings will surely be regarded by many in the know as itself revelatory of bias.--With many thanks, Paul Oppenheimer Poppenheimer (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of situation is exactly why we have the conflict of interest guideline. It is not appropriate to systematically add books you have written to Wikipedia articles. It creates the impression that you are here to promote your books and/or work. As a subject matter expert, I'm sure you know a great deal about these topics and are familiar with lots of other scholar's work - I suggest that you focus on adding content which would be references to people apart from yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ollie: Your article on the sonnet promotes the work (now obsolete) of C. Kleinhenz, indicating that he may have written the piece himself; your article on guilt takes a purely psychological-emotional approach to the problem, indicating that it was probably written by a student of psychology; your Eulenspiegel piece cites my translation of the hero's epitaph without crediting me for translating it, and while citing my 1991 edition, it fails to mention the new and improved 2001 edition, everywhere cited as a standard; your article on Rubens fails to cite a biography now cited as a crucial research volume (my biography), which is today mentioned in virtually all important discussions of Rubens and his paintings. In short, and as I mention in my previous email to you, Wikipedia articles invariably reveal "conflicts of interest" and all sorts of authors clearly promoting themselves, as they should, and as is unavoidable. Why should responsible authors not promote themselves? What can be done about cases of pure self-promotion is (a) to gauge whether it is professional and responsible, and (b) to restore some balance to the discsussion by citing and being sure to include up to date new sources. I'm afraid that anything short of doing so is simply misleading nonsense.--Paul OppenheimerPoppenheimer (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible authors should not promote themselves, because Wikipedia policy forbids it. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia and its processes. I strongly suggest that you try editing articles that are unrelated to yourself or your professional interests for a while to gain an understanding of how this project operates. In particular reading some of the discussions at the conflict of interest noticeboard should prove illuminating. - MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with finaquant protos?

Hello MrOllie

I tried to add the noncommercial calculation engine finaquant protos to the list of .NET libraries at the wiki page "List of numerical libraries" but it was rejected everytime, even though I deleted the external link afterwards.

Would the following paragraph be acceptable without any links and references at all?

"finaquant protos by Finaquant Analytics is a noncommercial free (zero-priced) calculation engine based on table functions, with tables as input and output parameters. This .NET library can be used in applications like table calculations or table mathematics, cause-effect and provider-distributor networks."

If not, what is wrong? What would you advice?

Do I need to write a separate wiki article for finaquant protos?

Thanks and regards Tunc --92.106.200.184 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The list is for notable software as demonstrated by a preexisting Wikipedia article. It's probably not the best idea to write about software you have written on Wikipedia, but if you do, make sure that you have coverage in multiple sources that are independent of you and your software, or your separate article will likely be deleted. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding issues on MTJ

Not really sure how to address many of the issues you raised about that page. I actually have trouble finding a page on any software library which meets those requirements. Take OpenCV for example, every reference it has is to its own webpage, so it is also a single source and it is its own primary source. Same goes for LAPACK and many more very well estabilished widely used software libraries with filled out wikipages. MTJ is cited in several papers and used in other software projects. Those citations tend to be "we used MTJ in our project" type and would not be apprioriate to reference in that article. Any suggestions? Pabeles (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've mistakenly created an article that doesn't have the required sources available, you can correct that by putting {{db-author}} at the top of the page, an admin will come by and delete it for you. Otherwise, someone will probably take the article through the articles for deletion process sooner or later. - MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave it for now and see what happens. Maybe I am missreading the guidelines, but a large number of software library pages on wikipedia don't meet those requirements since they cite the project itself, only. As I mentioned in the talk page and in the last message, it is cited by papers in the literature. The "significant coverage" requirement is the only one I'm not sure about. OpenCV and LAPACK have numerious books written about them, on the other hand Jama does not and doesn't seem to be underquestion. Pabeles (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a big site and there is a lot to do. Those other articles probably haven't been reviewed yet - sometimes these things can sit around under the radar for a long time, sometimes someone on new pages patrol notices right away. If you have the publication details of those books handy, it would be very helpful if you would add them, either as citations or in a further reading section. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and deleting contributions by others

Hello, You just deleted updates that I had made to the Reptile page. Fortunately, somebody just put it back. I thik that I abide by Wikipedia rules and try to provide reasonably objective accounts. If you disagree with anything I write in the future, please contact me first. I am a professional paleontologist and systematist. See my home page. I often cite some of my papers in these updates, but not only. In the case of the Reptile page, I added three papers, only one of which is mine, and I cited another of mine that was already abundantly cited on that page (and cited by others; I had not previously updated that page), for other aspects of the paper (it was cited for the phylogeny, but I needed to support an update about nomenclature). Best wishes, Michel Laurin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Laurin (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Good Afternoon 'MrOllie',

I was wondering what the cause of the deletion of edits I made to three pages on Wikipedia. I'm new to this, but these external links and references were to interviews with the actual authors while visiting Australia. I'm not sure how a first hand source could be considered untrustworthy. If you could let me know I'd appreciate it, and I'm certain the authors would like to know why interviews they've participated in in good faith are being deleted from wikipedia, interviews about themselves and their lives like most of the newspaper articles and podcasts that are used for the majority of references on Wikipedia. The blog mentioned has about 10 interviews with authors every week, and has done so for about five years now. The section they have come from has become something of an institution in Australia, where domestic content relating to books, particularly interviews with authors from overseas, can be scarce.

Thanking You, Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcattanach85 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your reversal of my edits

I just saw that you reversed my edits for red pill and alpha male that are part of my ongoing effort to document the "manosphere". Whether or not it is "fringe" is highly questionable. It is an online movement consisting of hundreds of websites, blogs, and forums that receives heavy user traffic. I'd appreciate your help in determining how to document the usage of these terms in this movement as it is almost exclusively online. This online movement (the "manosphere") arose exclusively online in response to what they felt was the well documented censorship in the mainstream media of any male opinions on gender issues that dissented from what they refer to as feminist doctrine. So although the movement literally contains hundreds of sites that receive a HUGE amount of combined web traffic, regardless of whether it's because of this censorship they mention or because of their own choice, they are ABSOLUTELY INVISIBLE in the mainstream media. I believe you would agree that whether or not one agrees with the movement's positions, it needs to be documented.

I don't want to get into an edit war so please refer me to the wikipedia policies you were referring to when you excluded my edits as "fringe" viewpoints.

I just looked up "Self-published sources (online and paper)" ... and by my reading the sources I provided should have been allowed. It reads: self-published media—whether ... personal websites, ... blogs, ... Internet forum postings, ...are largely not acceptable ... 'with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users'.

Since I referred to credentialed members of the site's editorial staff to document the usage of terms within the websites of the Manosphere, I'd like clarification on how this could have been considered a "fringe" interpretation.

In closing I'd like whatever help you can provide in ensuring that I'm able to document this movement. Ethicalv (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what is said in reliable sources as defined by our guidelines. If this community is truly 'ABSOLUTELY INVISIBLE in the mainstream media' as you say, then there may be no reliable sources to summarize and coverage of this topic may need to be omitted from Wikipedia. This is OK, Wikipedia is not intended to be a complete archive of every fact. Also see our policy on Due and undue weight as well as verifiability. As a subculture with little or no exposure to the mainstream, they form a fringe. The editorial staff exemption you are referencing is for sites that otherwise meet the reliable sources guideline but also have a user generated content section - for example, we might cite Arianna Huffington's articles on the Huffington Post, even though that site also carries a number of user blogs and comment sections. That is a fairly narrow exeception that will not apply to most blog postings, and does not apply to the sites you have referenced. There is a very important sentence from the section you link that you appear to have missed: 'Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ' - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I looked up the documentation you provided on what constitutes reliable sources as defined by our guidelines.

Reliable sources may be ... "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject"

In documenting the usage of terms by website authors in the websites that comprise the online community known as the "manosphere", there can be no more authoritative sources than the authors themselves. I'm sure you agree that referring to a writer's own webpage to obtain that writer's opinion is more authoritative than any second hand source, regardless of whether that source is "mainstream".

The "fringe" argument would not then be applicable, because my article clearly did not seek to change the general definition of any term, merely to record the terms usage in a large community by referring to reliable sources, namely authoritative sources in that community itself.

As for whether or not the "manosphere" community deserves to be included in wikipedia, there are mainstream sources that make significant mention of it, thereby indicating that it is "notable", and that identify some of the websites in it, thereby indicating which are "authoritative". They just don't mention anything about what the manosphere actually says. For that ... as I've stated, there can be no more reliable source of the website's usage of terms than the websites themselves.

I'd appreciate your help in resolving this matter. Ethicalv (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I quoted for you above, authoritative authors are those that have previously been published by reliable third-party publications. There is really no getting around this - if all you have to cite are self published blogs, your content will not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. You need independently published material with a reputation for fact checking - newspapers, peer reviewed journals, etc. That a website has been mentioned is not sufficient: the Time Cube has been mentioned in reliable sources, but that does not mean we cite it on on Physics articles. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I appreciate you taking the time to provide that quote. But you misunderstood my entire argument as to why that content is suitable. I agree that the Time Cube should not be cited on Physics articles. That example is irrelevant as though I seek to document the manosphere, presenting it's views as mainstream or authoritative was clearly not what I was suggesting. Instead I was suggesting just documenting this large movements positions as its own. The example you gave actually supported my argument. The website of the Time Cube's creator is certainly a reliable source for any insight on the Time Cube, though it is not a mainstream source, and I see the article refers directly to that website exactly as I suggested would be appropriate in the case of the manosphere. Also though by any measure the concept of a Time Cube is certainly "fringe", that was no reason to exclude the concept from wikipedia because the article doesn't attempt to state that the interpretation is accepted by anyone but him the creator. This is EXACTLY what my edits have done.

Your response is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethicalv (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self published sources should be used only on articles about that source - we can use the time cube cite on Time Cube, and no where else. Similarly, we could use avoiceformen.com on an article about that site, should one ever be created, but not anywhere else. If you have further questions you can get wider input at the sources noticeboard. - MrOllie (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance ... that was exactly my argument Ethicalv (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Now that you know not use these sorts of self published sources on articles that are not specifically about that source (as you were previously), you should not have any further problems. - MrOllie (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand again. If your feedback is to be useful I ask that you comment specifically on the issue I addressed. Careless, insincere responses like yours above entertain yourself only at the expense of wikipedia itself, and those of us who value wikipedia enough to devote our time to improving it. I demonstrated in my argument that: a) mainstream reliable sources identify avoiceformen.com as part of the "manosphere", and b) I stated my intention to document only the usage of concepts and terms in the manosphere, not to change general definitions of concepts or terms, or to imply the manosphere definitions are mainstream, and c)I justified what should be obvious ... why websites in the manosphere are considered reliable sources for the usage of concepts and terms in the manosphere.

If you have any useful, topical feedback to assist myself and others in this matter, that feedback will always be appreciated. Ethicalv (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said, the self published source exceptions are narrower than that. A website in the 'manosphere' should be used as a source only on an article about that particular website. Not an article about the 'manosphere' in general, not an article about a concept or a term, even if that term is commonly used by the 'manosphere'. My useful, topical feedback is this: If you don't support your text with citations to independently published and fact checked sources, your text will continue to be removed. - MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I will ensure that I do not represent that the manosphere's usage of any existing terms, or understanding of any concept they claim, are valid or are generally held views. I will ensure that I do not represent any website's views as being authoritative for all of the manosphere. And I will ensure that I only document the manosphere rather than advocate for it, and represent the claims as their own in as balanced a manner as possible. I hope it is clear as well now that sites in the manosphere can be cited reliable sources for their own opinions according to wikipedia policies since:

"Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any."

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:"

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

And I hope it is clear furthermore that a number of sites have been specifically identified by the SPLC (and elsewhere) as part of the "manosphere", that Wikipedia considers the SPLC a reliable source, and that the SPLC has described the manosphere as a significant movement. I hope it is also clear that the manosphere is notable independently of the SPLC in that it has been mentioned in mainstream media publications like Huffington Post, Business Insider, Reason Magazine, and All Voices, among others.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&oldid=526565667"