This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Seraphimblade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive
Archives

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

Please do be nice.

Please read before posting[edit]

  • Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.


  • If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
  • If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
  • If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
  • If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
  • While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
  • I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

your opinion please...[edit]

You closed the AFD on Olympia Nelson. Well, both the nominator, and one of the two delete voters were wikihounding me, when the AFD was underway. Both nominator World's Lamest Critic (WLC) and CommotioCerebri (CC) earned indefinite blocks for their disruptive behaviors a few months later.

CC has used over 6 dozen IP addresses to evade their indefinite block in order to disrupt my contributions. WLC spends a lot of energy wikihounding my contributions on the commons. Their most recent block evasion can be found here.

I think I do a pretty good job of assuming good faith, or giving the appearance I am still able to assume good faith, in the face of fierce temptation to do the opposite. But I think my obligation to assume good faith ends when someone has earned an indefinite block for bad faith disruption.

Therefore, I will say I think WLC's nomination of Olympia Nelson, and CC's endorsement of WLC's nomination were not sincere, good faith opinions. These two individuals were not putting the best interests of the wikipedia first. I believe both these individuals showed a long history of disrupting my contributions due to malice and bad faith.

As an administrator who closes AFD, you have to count on participants leaving comments based in good faith. Are there circumstances where you think a history of proven bad faith is a sufficient justification to overturn an AFD? Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  • P.S. Re-reading the AFD I see I didn't start this article, after all. I think I did a lot of work to improve it. I believe that both WLC and CC did nominate articles I started for bad faith reasons. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: Not really, no. When closing an AfD, I'm interested in whether or not the person in question made a sound, policy-based argument. I can't read minds. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood me, I was not questioning your initial judgement. Of course you are not a mind-reader, and had no way, then, of knowing that those individuals could not be trusted to operate in good faith.
I request userification, talk page too, please.
Thanks!  Geo Swan (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Afraid not. A substantial part of the concerns raised during the discussion were BLP based. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

My draft article, Draft:Tencent Research Institute[edit]

Hello, Seraphimblade. I am editing Wikipedia on Tencent Research Institute as my study assignment for this semester. I found that the draft page has been deleted by you on the grounds that there are unambiguous advertising or promotion. Could you tell me that there is a problem with the specific section, and help me improve that, I need to complete the assignment as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen L 2019 (talkcontribs)

Stephen L 2019, there are problems with fluff language, such as "a wealth of data and reports" (leave out stuff like "a wealth of"), "powerful research capabilities" (again, "powerful"), "China's first Internet research institute" (first according to whom?), and so on. The primary problem, though, is that the section on the organization's reports is massively excessive in detail, and seems to be pushing the findings rather than summarizing them. Realistically, this organization would probably be better covered by a paragraph or two in Tencent rather than an entirely separate article, but if an attempt at an article is to be written, it should be a brief summary, not contain exhaustive detail that treats what the organization said as actually correct. Do remember that article content requires support from reliable sources, and the organization itself should only be relied upon to a very limited degree. Most of the support should come from sources unaffiliated with the organization. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, Thanks for your suggestion, I will try to improve the language as much as possible. But regarding the content of the report, since we were asked to edit more than 2,000 words, If I describe the report briefly, the number of articles will not meet the requirements. I have searched a lot of information about this organization, most of them about these reports. About the article was deleted, my tutor suggested that I need to modify the relevant sentences and meet the neutrality requirements.
Stephen L 2019, please be clear that I am not, to be frank, concerned with the details of your assignment. Draft space is for the preparation of material for the encyclopedia, not web hosting for school projects. If the parameters of your assignment are incompatible with writing an appropriate encyclopedia article, you will need to do your assignment somewhere other than on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Seraphimblade, My idea is to show the research results of this organization as much as possible in the research report section. Therefore, I introduce the contents of the research report in the report and research section. Since the report content is very large, I have used as few sentences as possible to describes the content of these reports.
Then, if that's the best you can do, it sounds like your assignment is incompatible with Wikipedia and you'll need to put it elsewhere instead. Again, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you need somewhere to store your school projects besides locally, there are many free and low-cost cloud providers available to do that (some of the resources here might work), but this is not the place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade,Our assignment is to write articles for Wikipedia, so we need to publish them on Wikipedia. If I can solve the problem of unambiguous advertising or promotion, can I publish the article?
Stephen L 2019, I'm a bit concerned if your class specifically involves editing Wikipedia, as it does not seem that it at all familiarized you with what the expectations would be while doing that. Being free of promotion is one requirement for an article, but it is far from the only one. Do you know if your class or instructor worked with the assistance of the education program? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, Sorry, I am not sure about that. If I need to publish this article, do you have any good suggestions for my article?
I have already said what you will need to do. You will need to write something entirely in keeping with Wikipedia policies, including using reliable sources, writing neutrally, and avoiding excess detail. That is, and will remain, the answer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of PENOPT[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

1. The software is listed in List_of_optimization_software and (not by me) in Mathematical_optimization_software - I have merely added the missing links; without them, any such list of software doesn't make much sense. Isn't that the main goal of Wikipedia - to deliver information to interested audience? These lists and tables are very useful but only when they contain links to further information, not just the name of the software.

2. All other software listed in the above tables have Wikipedia pages - most of that software is commercial (Tomlab, Midaco, WORPH, Mosek, Gurobi, ...) - what is then the difference???

3. The new pages (PENNON,PENBMI,PENSDP) contain the very basic information of what the software does, together with a reference to published articles and link to a relevant website; I don't see any promotion there.

4. The software is free for academic users (some for limited time but with renewable license), it does not need any promotion

5. The software is the only available software for nonlinear semidefinite programming - so if researchers is looking for a software to solve their problems, they should be able to find this information on Wikipedia

6. The PEN* software has been around for almost 20 years, it's being used by hundreds of mostly academic researchers, has hundreds of citations in scientific journals; I believe it deserves a Wiki page with a basic information (just like all the software in my point 2.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkocvara (talkcontribs)

Mkocvara, no, providing an "about us" page is not the purpose of Wikipedia (not "Wiki"), nor are all subjects appropriate for articles. Articles should be supported by a substantial amount of material from sources that are reliable and fully independent of the article subject. If such sources don't exist, we should not have an article on the subject at all, let alone a whole string of them. (The fact that similar items might be appropriate for articles is not relevant). From other messages you've written, it's very clear that you're affiliated with the products in question, and while not prohibited, it is in practice very difficult to remain neutral while writing about a subject one is close to or has an interest in. Probably best to leave that to someone not involved. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, thanks for your reply. OK, I understand that you (Wikipedia) don't like when authors of software write about their products, even if it's supported by hundreds of (independent) citations. However, I would like to argue (for the sake of generality) that articles published in reviewed international scientific journals are reliable and, in some way, also independent sources, as they had to go through the scrutiny of the refereeing and editorial process. These are not self-published websites. Other reliable sources are, of course, the citations of the software in other articles by other authors ("our problem was solved by software xxx") such as https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=8363910107581940526. But these, however independent, do not give much information about the software itself (algorithm used, what problems can it solve, etc).
The other point is that, in my honest opinion, a sentence "xxx is software solving yyy" is neutral. Michal.

Books & Bytes, Issue 33[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)