Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ruud Koot: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:58, 19 March 2011 editGfoley4 (talk | contribs)Administrators40,870 editsm Reverted edits by Gfoley4 (talk) to last version by Andy Dingley← Previous edit Revision as of 04:49, 21 March 2011 edit undoAquib American Muslim (talk | contribs)2,681 edits →Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom: new sectionNext edit →
Line 146: Line 146:
== ] at ANI == == ] at ANI ==
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom ==

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* ];
* ].

Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> -] (]) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:49, 21 March 2011

Archive
Archives

Hi Ruud

Sorry to hve changed your al-Khwarizmi. No harm intended. I have explained my reasons on the discussion page. I promise not to revert again, if you 're really, really attached to the way the article is right now. Ciao. S711 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User Optimering

Ruud, I would like to make a small 'official' note of our 'relationship' on your talk page because I have been in a couple of edit conflicts lately in which you have voiced your opinion sometimes protecting me or my points of view, which has resulted in you being targeted for criticism as well. Let it be known that I do not know Ruud or have ever met him, I have never communicated with him by e-mail or anything of the sort. However, I greatly appreciate Ruud participating in the disputes because he is considerate and fair. In fact, Ruud is so fair and unbiased that he has also criticized me for being elitist and impolite (which has been duly noted.) If it were not for such intelligent and unbiased administrators Misplaced Pages would be a Wild West of hearsay. I hope that Ruud will continue participating in improving Misplaced Pages as his leisure time permits and I naturally expect that he will voice objections to my behaviour or edits if he should see reason to do so, just as he does with other editors. Optimering (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Recruiting outside experts

Some of the articles I have edited have been criticized mainly by the editors User:MrOllie and User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz as being biased and unbalanced in their coverage and inclusion of certain references. I get the impression that the editors are WP:HOUNDING me so they should come across this message as well, in which I propose a neutral resolution to the dispute. I have continually tried to revise the articles in question but it appears that the editors are not satisfied and especially MrOllie keeps reverting edits I make. While I question their knowledge of the subject matter and hence their ability to make such judgments, and I generally believe there is no merit to their accusations, it would be wrong of me to continue posting references to research with certain viewpoints without a review of the disputed Misplaced Pages articles from neutral and knowledgeable editors. Unfortunately, in the past disputes over those articles it seems that there are not many Misplaced Pages editors with sufficient insight to give qualified opinions on these particular topics. I would therefore like to propose that we request outside assistance and that you or another official Misplaced Pages administrator help in this. It will give more weight to the matter if an official Misplaced Pages administrator politely asks for outside assistance (besides, I never have any luck recruiting expert contributors as they have all turned me down.) I will naturally respect the outcome of an independent and competent review, and I hope the opposing editors will as well.

The disputed articles are:

  • Particle swarm optimization and differential evolution. Here I would suggest contacting the editors of reputable journals and briefly explain the matter and politely ask them to circulate amongst their reviewers a request to review/edit these articles, and if they have no concerns and feel the articles are unbiased and balanced then express their opinion in the talk pages. Although many academics do not wish to participate in Misplaced Pages because of the inherent problems with an open encyclopedia it might help if you mention that the PSO article is viewed about 10.000 times/month and the DE article about 2.500 times/month. The articles are presumably the first source for novices entering the field so it is in the best interest of the journals that the Misplaced Pages articles fairly and accurately represent the main methodologies, different schools of thought, etc. I would suggest contacting the editors of IEEE TEC, Springer Swarm Intelligence, and MIT Evolutionary Computation, to name a few.
  • Meta-optimization is a niche and it may be difficult to find qualified people reviewing and editing that article. An obvious suggestion would be Professor Eiben but his work is cited in the article so the opposing editors might question his neutrality. Perhaps Dr. Schoenauer from INRIA can make a suggestion for neutral reviewers/editors. (INRIA has actually published a number of papers in this research field but I never got around to listing them in the article - hopefully they will do so themselves, although the opposing editors might dislike that on COI concerns...)
  • Luus-Jaakola used to be local unimodal sampling and I'm not sure if the opposing editors still question its notability or neutrality, but if they do I would suggest contacting e.g. Dr. Virginia Torczon or maybe Dr. Anne Auger (also from INRIA) who are acknowledged researchers and may be able to provide a sound review of the article and possibly make changes/additions.

With a bit of luck you will be able to recruit several expert reviewers/contributors. In the academic world, reviews can take anywhere from months to years, so we will all need a little patience. Also, the varying schools of thought in this highly experimental research field are more like religions to some, so it might result in some heated debates. But regardless of the outcome I would welcome more expert contributors as it would mean that the burden of editing those articles no longer lies (almost) entirely with me.

Cheers,

Optimering (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Optimering
You seem like a nice person (or you seemed so, until the recent insults thrown at MrOllie, 00:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)). I just think that you have been rushing to create a slew of articles, when a reasonable editing schedule would allowed you to focus on one or two. I understand your wanting to save the local unimodal sampling article, and your having limited time. Rushing things has probably resulted in coincidental edits, that look "really weird" after the fact.
:(Today, I see that Nair has nothing about random sampling, but discusses C^2 functions! What am I supposed to think?)Updated example: The use of articles citing LJ to establish notability of the Pedersen thesis looked weird, imho! (00:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC))
It may still be possible to move the LJ heurstic/method article to the sandbox. I think that you will enjoy yourself more if you give yourself a little more time to develop an article, instead of editing under pressure and feeling scrutiny to develop this whole area.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit War, what to do?

As you know User:MrOllie is continually reverting edits I make, particularly references to certain work. His/her concern is WP:COI. He does not argue that the work is either irrelevant, biased with weasel-words, or given too much weight thus making the articles unbalanced. He does not tag the articles with his concern and discusses on the talk-page, he just removes text. More importantly, he removes sections or phrases that makes the remaining context meaningless, for example in his recent edit of Luus-Jaakola where he removed an entire section on setting the parameter of the algorithm, without which the algorithm is useless. I have tried communicating with MrOllie several times over an extensive period of time but he continues his warring. I will gladly accept a community consensus or a verdict from an academic review board, but I will not be tyrannized by a random editor with no insight on the topic. Do you have any recommendations on how to handle this as it is rather tiresome that I have to monitor the articles and repair the damage? Thanks. Optimering (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie doesn't appear to be the brightest star under the sky, so I think trying to reason with him will not be possible. Some third-opinion would be useful. I shall think about the most appropriate venue. —Ruud 11:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Ruud, the insult about MrOllie should be removed, as you know as an administrator and a helpful editor. Even if it were true, it should be removed.
However, it is pessimistic and unwarranted. You should note that MrOllie did acknowledge his own error, when pointed out by Optimering, and corrected it. He has shown a willingness to learn, and correct his and my errors along with Optimering's.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

COIN noticeboard

As a courtesy, I alert you that there has been some discussion about Optimering at the COIN noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at M4gnum0n's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For your amusement

In case you missed it, there is an amusing discussion going on here.  --Lambiam 00:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Screenshot-Adblock Plus Preferences.png

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot-Adblock Plus Preferences.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Peter Landin.png

Thanks for uploading File:Peter Landin.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at AgadaUrbanit's talk page.
Message added 20:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Haskell

I concede that you were correct regarding WP:FURTHER. The length of the designers list is an editorial judgment issue; your position is a reasonable one that I'm willing to compromise on. But I absolutely disagree that WP:CITEVAR should be callously ignored. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering

What is the point of adding userrights you already have, excepting abusefilter? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits failed to be auto reviewed. Why? —Ruud 21:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
That's odd. I just asked because usually admins don't need to add extra those rights. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think so either. Probably just a 1.17 bug. —Ruud 22:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we about to lose the history on Mathematics in medieval Islam?

It looks unstable, as you noted. Aquib (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on stubbing (deletion) of Mathematics in medieval Islam article

You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You -Aquib (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

Excellent work discussing computer science! Keep up the good efforts! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There are now four users besides myself who have raised concerns at ANI about the blocking of talk page access. Silverseren 06:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:File:Khayyam-paper-1stpage.png

I don't remember precisely. I guess someone sent me a file or something like a webpage and said the picture is from a manuscript in Tehran University. I made, probably, a "computer snapshot" of it and post it as "completely my own work". Now that I know more about the meaning of these words and look back I see that it was not a correct thing to do. So please let us delete it. Xashaiar (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back. I will write an email to my friends to see who did sent me the picture and will ask about the image/its relevance to khayyam/source/..whatever. This may take some days. I will get an answer for that. Xashaiar (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Ruud Koot. You have new messages at M4gnum0n's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citeseer

Template:Citeseer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed)  15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

re: speedy-deletion criterion R2

You recently speedy-deleted Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (2nd nomination). I don't necessarily disagree with the decision to delete it but you cited CSD#R2 in your edit summary. The wording of R2 explicitly excludes redirects to Misplaced Pages space. There are many legitimate cross-namespace redirects that are not even regular-deletable, much less speedy-deletable, and we're trying to clean up the cites to that clause so that it's not so widely misunderstood by new users. Nothing to be done for this case but if you could keep it in mind in future situations, it would make the cleanup easier. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Web 3.0 at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Web 3.0. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)