User talk:Mwsobol

Welcome!

Hello, Mwsobol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. There is no need to add the full set of honorifics and degrees with your name. Indeed you might wish to read WP:ACADEME which explains some of the differences between the world in which you live and work and the world of Wikipedia. These differences may surprise you and you may feel them to be peculiar, but please read the essay and it will help you to understand this strange environment. Fiddle Faddle 12:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mwsobol. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article SORCER ‎, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 23:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Service Protocol Oriented Architecture

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Service Protocol Oriented Architecture, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Fiddle Faddle 23:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia for self promotion

Your edits all seem to feature papers that you have been author or co-author of. Articles that you have created or edited appear to be vehicles to promote your papers. If you have read WP:ACADEME you will realise that reputations have to be made outside WIkipedia, and that Wikipedia may not, absolutely not, be used to seek to create some form of personal notability. WIkipedia is not to be used in this manner. Please cease edits that feature your own work. This is an encyclopaedia, not your curriculum vitae and list of papers.

If you, yourself, happen to be notable then doubtless an admirer of your work will write your biography. WHen and if that happens I counsel you as strongly as I am able to avoid editing it. Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent, What is wrong with defining SPOA to my best ability as a complementary term to SOOA? I am an educator and was asked for a help by the folks who defined the entry for SORCER (not me) and told me they have been threatened with deletion. Since I was teaching SORCER related courses for many years, they assumed nobody better can help them. In particular I have submitted the article on "Exertion-oriented programming" that even for me wast difficult to define for encyclopedia usage. Two my colleagues helped me with that at AFRL/WPAFB. One created the included clarifying chart.

If you can help them better based on existing research results or if you prefer to delete everything related to leading research in federated service-oriented computing that fine with me. I do not care of it. I have retired already and do not need any promotion or benefits you think about. I just started helping others recently per their request even not having time for that. I have corrected what was not proper in their definitions and complemented with what I was asked for, but I am done now with editing for Wikipedea. Thanks for your collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwsobol (talk • contribs)

What is wrong is using your own work as references and thus promoting yourself and your work. You have a conflict of interest and should stand well clear. I have recommended twice now WP:ACADEME but you seem to be ignoring it and anything I say. Fiddle Faddle 00:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete all my contribution to Wikipedia, or let me know how to do it, I can do it myself. Thanks again for collaboration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwsobol (talk • contribs)

For any article you have created you may place the text {{db-author}} at the head. The collaboration has been simple. I have asked you not to promote your own work and you have now agreed to do so. Thank you.

Regrettably you cannot place this on article you have not created, but you may participate in the deletion discussions suggesting that they be deleted. I commend this approach to you. Fiddle Faddle 12:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that what you call self-promotion is for me hard work to explain concisely scientific concepts with the right references, like a short paper. I have done my best and it is really upsetting to hear about self-promotion while my goal was to share my experience with folks who are using wiki for well-defined definitions. This way you never get high quality complex scientific/engineering concepts explained well by amateurs.

Mwsobol (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last question, how to delete my wiki account? I am not planning to use it anymore. Cannot find option for doing that.

http://sorcersoft.org/sobol/ Mwsobol (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting accounts here appears to be impossible. It is something to do with an attributable trail of editing. I find that irksome. We shoudl be able to leave when we want, but we are not allowed to.

I understand with precision how you feel about your work. This is why I showed you WP:ACADEME. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place of scientific rigour, and it has rules about conflict of interest. In your workplace rules exit(ed) too. Your papers, too, are Primary sources. We tend to avoid them as references anyway, primary sources. They show that a thing exists, but they do not show that it is notable. Wikipedia deals with things that are notable, and that are reported in reliable sources, so I wish you had internalised WP:ACADEME before becoming too involved.

Assuming your work to be notable then someone will write about it. Please, not you, nor anyone at your behest.

By the way, if you are not promoting yourself, why are you suddenly spraying links here with your details in them? Such acts do not display what you perhaps wish to display.

A professional is merely an amateur who gets paid to do the thing, you know. There is no special distinction. If you are retired as you say and no longer paid to research things, welcome back to the amateur world. Fiddle Faddle 01:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A professional has a diploma or at least a license so can prove what can do, an amateur does not have to. Yes I retired but I am a consultant in may places so I am still paid. Payment is not related to either case. I assume you have clicked on my link, so you know I am a professional. So, I would appreciate to have yours.

Mwsobol (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could debate this all year and score points one and the other. You have all the information about me that I care to reveal on WIkipedia. I am by no means skilled in your field of study. I am highly skilled in mine. My field is irrelevant to the Wikipedia articles I create and edit because I understood at once that Conflict of Interest was a massive mistake. There is no way one should ever put one's self in the position on Wikipedia of being even considered to promote one's own projects, papers, corporation, reputation. The very request to do so by others should ring massive alarm bells.

You could enjoy editing WIkipedia as an intellectual exercise. Everyone is most welcome to add to it in areas that have no possibility for COI. You should do so. You may enjoy it. IT is like nothing else you have ever done. Fiddle Faddle 19:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Service Protocol Oriented Architecture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Service Protocol Oriented Architecture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service Protocol Oriented Architecture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Exertion-oriented programming (December 14)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Professor Sobolewski

Pleasure to make your acquaintance. Please call me 74. My friend Tim is a good wikipedian, but they have made a couple mistakes above, and gotten off on the wrong foot with you. My apologies! As you know, wikipedia is still a volunteer project, which means that we don't have the resources to do as much as we would like, especially with regard to attracting expertise. In some ways, this is liberating, but it can be very troublesome for folks like myself who care about editor-retention, and very vexing for folks like yourself that run into the strange wikiCulture that dominated hereabouts.

You are, of course, free to no longer participate in wikipedia's weird (and sometimes but not always wonderful) sort of collaboration, per your stated intention above. However, I do wish you would stay. I looked over your work on exertion-oriented programming, where you built up from pipes and RMI to a clear exposition of a complex concept -- it's just the sort of thing we need around here. I have some experience in the area, and enough experience with wikipedia that I would be able to help finish the article off. As you and I have never worked together in real life, and I have neither a financial stake nor a claim to fame at stake in this specific topic, there would be no conflict of interest troubles whatsoever. This "buddy-system" is the sort of collaboration wikipedia was designed for.

If you should decide to stick it out a bit longer, the rules are very simple. Stay nice to everybody, content that is uploaded becomes copyleft (the text-content equivalent of the GPL ... whereas most of SORCER is under the Apache2 license which is a slightly more flexible type of open-source), and articles should be just-the-facts in a neutral tone, encyclopedic content only (not textbooks or news reporting... we have other sister-projects for that sort of thing). Since you are directly related to SORCER, as the inventor and principle investigator, rather than directly edit SORCER, the "tribal custom" is for you to instead edit Talk:SORCER, and suggest additions/corrections/similar on that talkpage. I myself, or somebody like me, will read your edits, "peer review" them as your fellow editors, and then migrate the updates into the main SORCER article. Similarly, your work on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented_programming is a talkpage, which will be "peer reviewed" by one of the AfC specialists such as Julie, David, Anne, Tikuko, or various other folks.

This extra step is somewhat inefficient, but over the years since 2003 when the wikipedia project switched from a commercial-support basis to a non-profit-basis, we found it was essential to keep strict control on neutral tone. Wikipedia's relative reliability, the thing that makes it a top-ten website in the world (and almost certainly *the* top website for undergraduate research nowadays), rests entirely on our ability to stay neutral, and assess the facts fairly. Tim's worry was not unfounded, in other words, even though he put it badly, and was incorrect when he said that you ought to have heard "massive alarm bells". Wikipedia is nothing like your work in peer-reviewed proceedings, nor is it like a typical website, so there is zero reason for you to have thought such a thing. Furthermore, you *can* reference your own peer-reviewed papers, and you *can* edit areas related to your expertise, if done with care. I would be happy to show you how, and am currently working with Dr Betty Toole, who is a biographer of Ada Lovelace (as you may know the programming language was named after her -- she worked with Babbage in the 1800s -- and by "she" I'm speaking of Ada rather than Betty of course!).

No matter what you decide to do, again I apologize for the sorry state of affairs that exists at the moment. I'm involved in a project called WP:RETENTION, part of which is devoted to improving the relationship between wikipedia and experts, like yourself. It would be a shame to lose you, but quite frankly, there are only 150 members in the retention-project at present (I'm urging Tim to join and of course you yourself would also be most welcome) so getting the wikiCulture changed for the better will not happen in 2013... there are 80k active editors, and a thousand new ones show up every month, so it is very difficult to find the needles in the haystack, as it were. You may reply here, if you wish, but if I do not respond promptly, please feel free to click 'talk' next to my name, and leave me a reminder on my own page. Thanks for improving wikipedia; sorry things have gone poorly up to now. Let me know if I can be of any help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

|}

p.s. There is one more thing that I believe is worth mentioning. There are a ton of piddly rules for wikipedia, built up during the past six years. However, we do have one ironclad rule around here, called the fifth pillar. It says: if any rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. Personally, I like that particular rule very much, and make heavy use of it. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

procedural discussion only, be ye not alarmed

Hello professor, I see you have been engaging in spirited debate on the talkpage with my friend Tim/FiddleFaddle, with some input from my colleague TRPoD/TheRedPenOfDoom. :-) Wikipedia is a strange place. They are trying to defend her, as best they know how. It is too much to expect that they, as volunteers, will read your scientific papers, or browse through the codebase, or at least, the portion which is open-source.

By the same token, they should not be demanding *YOU* do all the work, memorizing wikipedia's five bazillion policies, and providing the very same references and cites that you have already supplied once, twice, thrice. Luckily, myself and Martijn have interest in distributed computation and distributed programming generally, but (this is key!) no ties to SORCER itself specifically, and a solid understanding of wiki-policies (Martijn more than myself... they are an administrator here).

Anyhoo, I've asked Tim/FiddleFaddle to stop sniping at you on the talkpage, and I ask the same of you; please keep to the moral high ground, clarify the concepts, and if someone objects, just let them object. It hurts nothing; all discussions here are decided by who is right on the merits, never by counting noses. Usually, folks who object are trying to express some dis-satisfaction with how one of the five bazillion wiki-policies is being complied with, and not at all interested in actually understanding SORCER, exertions, or similar. This is to be expected; there are only 30k editors here (counting yourself and Pawelpacewicz + Prubach + Beavercreekful + Kazumo + 132 fully as editors). SORCER is unlikely to be of interest to very many of those 30k. The readership, the 500M folks who visit wikipedia for information every month, is where the *real* interest in SORCER lies, after all.

In a nutshell, my message is simply this: keep calm, and carry on. Stick to the talkpages as you have been, and stick to explaining my conceptual mistakes, which is both helpful and much appreciated, by the way. I and Martijn will handle the wiki-politics at the AfD thing. It is a purely procedural discussion, about whether to move the article on WT:Articles_for_creation/Exertion-oriented programming and the article on SORCER next to each other, into the WP:Drafts namespace (a new feature ... too boring to explain unless we end up using it). Alternatively, we might stay the way we are now, if myself and Martijn and Yngvadottir can marshal the wiki-arguments properly.

You and the other SORCER folks are perfectly free to contribute to the discussion, but I would recommend hanging back in the beginning, at least until myself and perhaps Martijn have posted our wiki-policy-oriented arguments. Those are the key to these procedural discussions, which never discuss content, accuracy, or the advanced concepts of engineering — they are entirely attended by people interested in wikipedia policy, qua wikipedia policy. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, now or in the future; the fastest way is to click 'talk' by my name, click 'new section', and then leave me a direct note, which will give me a notification whenever I am online. Thanks for improving wikipedia, and worry not, this will all get ironed out in the next few weeks. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advise on SORCER article

Dr. Sobolewski,

For your own good and for SORCER's own good please refrain from editing the SORCER article or participating in discussions about SORCER on Wikipedia. Whenever you need to add something to the article feel free to post on the article's talk page at Talk:SORCER or contact me directly on my talk page at User talk:Ahnoneemoos. You can also email me at ahnoneemoosgmail.com

While I appreciate the fact that you are indeed contributing to Wikipedia, the vast majority of our editors frown upon authors editing articles related to their own work. Please read WP:COI so that you are aware of this situation.

As it's obvious that it's in the best interests of Wikipedia to have an article about SORCER I implore you to please indeed channel your edits either through me or through the article's talk page in order to avoid pissing some people off. I beleive this is a sensible solution to our current dilema. I hope that you understand.

Best regards,

Aubrey

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming

Hello Mwsobol. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Exertion-oriented programming".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exertion-oriented programming}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vanddi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vanddi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanddi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ploni (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]