User talk:MrOllie
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
Thank you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Fortran
Why do you keep removing the reference to the Fortran book? Is it because of your claim that it contains a 'bookstore reference'? If so, please note that:
a) it is not necessary to remove the whole citation;
b) it is, anyway, not a 'bookstore' reference but a direct link to the book on the website of one of the world's leading academic publishers. This is a convenience to any potential reader, who then doesn't need to undertake further searches. Mr.Fortran (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- We had the citation without link, and you added the improper link to it multiple times. I also have to ask - are you related to this book or any of its authors in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)]
May 2024
Did you get my ping? Just checking because I know that the notification system is not 100% reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw it. I'm reading and thinking about it, I'll most likely post something later today. MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)]
- Wait, this wasn't a templated warning from a new user inserting spam links?! I saw you replying to a Month Year section on your talk page and just assumed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's great. Thanks for doing that. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement about an unspecified "predatory publisher"
Hello, I would like to politely ask you to clarify me what specific "publisher" you were referring to when you stated "depends on sourcing from predatory publisher" as the comment to justify the removal of the constructive proof of the existence of (Euclidean) knight's tours on k-dimensional 2x2x...x2 grids for each k >= 6 (19:39, 17 April 2024, "Knight's tour" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight%27s_tour). I am asking for this clarification since the only referred sources were the FIDE (International Chess Federation) website, Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Mathematics (an academic peer-reviewed journal, listed on Web of Science), and a short note providing a valid closed Euclidean knight's tour on the 2x2x2x2x2x2 chessboard. Anyway, we could state the complete result by just linking the arXiv version of the aforementioned published article, which covers also the only remaining case (i.e., k = 6) allowing us to state the general result as a necessary and sufficient condition on k... Is it worth restoring the subsection if edited as above? Can a published paper (with constructive proof of a stated original result) on NNTDM or its arXiv version be considered a non-predatory source at the end (since they are a 100% free-of-charge open-access academic resource/repository)? Thanks in advance for your time, Marcokrt (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- nntdm.net - they're a predatory publisher. Plenty of predatory journals have gotten listed on Web of Science, that means nothing. Also, you should have a read of MrOllie (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)]
- Nope, I have not read that a proper source couldn't have been added in order to fill a knowledge gap on a stated problem, my bad. Now, could you please provide me a proper source about your claim about the assumption that NNTDM is a predtory publisher (I am asking this because I really need to know this since I sent them my best research papers).
- Furthermore, I asked if also arXiv can be considered a predatory publisher (given the fact that the same results are also there). Anyway, I will not edit anything in order to be sure to avoid any conflict (I am an Independent Researched doing research for free, spending my time only for the sake of solving open problems in NT and CO).
- Thanks again for your valuable info. Marcokrt (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you got taken in by a bad journal, but I do not plan to debate the issue here with you on my talk page. Arxiv is not 'predatory', but they are still unusable for Wikipedia since they allow anyone to publish anything with no quality controls. They are occasionally used as a convenience link when a paper has also been published through a reputable publisher. The bigger issue is that you should not be adding citations to yourself or writing about your own work here. MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)]
- Ok, I see and that's not a problem for me, I am only a bit sad because of those information cannot be shared with the readers interested in knowing it (they are still proven and online with a DOI and I am happy anyway).
- Now, I consider arXiv as a valid source since I often have seen it listed as a reference here (also on the same pages) and unfortunately, I do have not enough knowledge and experience here to make valuable edits to others' results on technical topics here, so I cannot help more on this side.
- My only (big) concern at the moment is that I need to know why NNTDM is considered a predatory journal and a claim needs a proper source (IMHO)... I spent many years on those results and I didn't find any evidence to confirm your statement, moreover I haven't every paid anything to publish there and, on average, I received also (for free) very good reviews after 1 year from sending the manuscripts.
- I hope you can understand the feeling from somebody who made all of this just to solve open problems and share knowledge.
- Regards Marcokrt (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Bring it up with the reliable sources noticeboard. IMO the bigger issue with the removed content was the way it was phrased - did not really adhere to Wikipedia's WP:COI. Sorry for hopping into your talk page Mr. Ollie, was just roaming around like a knight piece and thought I'd give my two cents re: this issue. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)]
- Bring it up with the reliable sources noticeboard. IMO the bigger issue with the removed content was the way it was phrased - did not really adhere to Wikipedia's
- I'm sorry you got taken in by a bad journal, but I do not plan to debate the issue here with you on my talk page. Arxiv is not 'predatory', but they are still unusable for Wikipedia since they allow anyone to publish anything with no quality controls. They are occasionally used as a convenience link when a paper has also been published through a reputable publisher. The bigger issue is that you should not be adding citations to yourself or writing about your own work here.
Hi MrOllie, would you be so kind to have a look at the contributions of the following users: Ezzeddini (talk · contribs) and Pasteur immunology (talk · contribs). As far as I can tell this looks like a typical case of citespam, but since this is far from my professional sector, a more expert evaluation seems appropriate. Thanks a lot in advance, DoebLoggs (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly refspam. I'd actually independently reverted a number of edits from Ezzeddini before you posted here. MrOllie (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)]