User talk:Oli Filth

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

I see that I have gained especial attention ("another of Nicky's overly-verbose additions"), and now you have purged a pile of stuff from the Interpolation_search article that lacked attribution to approved sources. Had you sought suitable sources? Even though this would require effort on your part, for instance by retaining parts for which you had found sources. Presumably, your high-level contributions will be applied impartially to other effusions of mine, as well of course to other persons. I had been contemplating reporting an actual comparison of the methods "linear", "binary" and "interpolation" on the same data file (coordinates of Arapawa Island, as it happens), but this would clearly be "original research" and so I hadn't bothered, even though examples are helpful towards comprehension. NickyMcLean (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my edit summary was a reference to the fact that on at least a few articles that I've stumbled across (e.g.

Binary search algorithm, For loop), the wordiest parts seem to be attributable to your edits. You of course know that phrasing such as that removed in my first edit

is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. You are also of course aware that the original-research policy doesn't allow one to run a bunch of one's own experiments and then write what amounts to an essay on the results with no independent sourcing.

If sources for this material are really as easy to find as you imply above, then please feel free to add them yourself! I have no objection to this sort of content if it can be (a) sourced, and (b) written and structured appropriately. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed it here [1]. It has been added back here:

I've indeed created the redirect for now. If there's scope for

Theory of genetic algorithms to have a raison-d'etre, and to contain material other than simple copy-and-paste, then perhaps it should be recreated. But not in its current state! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Exactly what I was thinking. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it's now been recreated; see the argument at Talk:Theory of genetic algorithms. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oli, I see that you've removed my recent edits to the genetic algorithms article on the grounds that it is "self promotion"? I'd like to get a sense for what you mean by this. Is it automatically "self promotion" when an author writes about his published work on Wikipedia? The generative fixation hypothesis is one of just two non-folk-hypotheses about the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms (the other being the building block hypothesis). There is indeed a large body of "theory" about genetic algorithms; but, this work is best understood as "theoretical approaches to genetic algorithms"; apart from work related to the BBH and the GFH, none of it has, to date, produced a plausible explanation for the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms. Another question: Eric Haugen writes above that the generative fixation hypothesis is in dispute. What are his sources?

In general, editors who cite themselves (in particular, in cases of very new publications) are doing it purely as self-promotion. If that was not your intention, then I apologise for jumping to conclusions, but it's a very common pattern here at Wikipedia. If your work is notable (I have no idea; I don't claim to be anything close to a subject expert), then I'd prefer to see it referenced by other editors, because otherwise it raises questions of

conflict of interest. I'd also prefer to see evidence of wider notability (i.e. has the notion of "generative fixation hypothesis" been picked up by others in the field? have your papers been cited?, etc.) Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 16:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand your reservations. I believe that the generative fixation hypothesis is notable by virtue of being one of only two published, peer-reviewed non-folk explanations for the the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms. It is also the only published, peer-reviewed explanation for the adaptive capacity of simple genetic algorithms with uniform crossover. —Preceding

talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be nice to have this conversation somewhere else. Anyway, I disagree that it's notable because there are only 2 theories. It's notable when other reliable sources refer to it, etc. To be clear, I am not weighing in on whether it is notable; I am just discussing the criteria. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, that's certainly one criterion. But is it the only one? When evaluating the notability of a new, published, peer-reviewed theory, I believe that some additional points should also be taken into consideration---especially in a

talk) 04:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see

WP:UNDUE. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I concede that my most recent edits may (kinda sorta) give the impression that the GFH is "equal" to the BBH in terms of adoption. Giving readers this impression was not my intention. I sought only to inform readers that there is an alternative to the BBH (a theory whose failings are well known), and to give a brief overview of the GFH. Nevertheless, I can see why you might view these changes as "overreaching". Would you be okay with rolling the article back to the point before my most recent edits? Another option is to let my edits stand, and to add a banner to the section on the GFH that cautions readers that the section contains material that may violate

talk) 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, the latter is certainly not an option! And to be honest, I'm not particularly keen on the former idea either. As far as I'm aware, your theories were published a little over 6 months ago, and have not yet been cited or discussed by any independent authors. The fact that you had to add them to Wikipedia yourself is indicative that they have not reached even the lowest rung of notability yet. This is not meant to be a criticism or a putdown; I'm merely pointing out that with the available evidence, there is no compelling reason to mention your theories at Genetic algorithm yet.

I would suggest that if you wish to continue to debate the issue, then bring it up at Talk:Genetic algorithm, so that a wider array of editors may air their opinions. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six months eh? If only scientists were that reliable ;-)

I think you forget that you and Erik aren't the only policemen on this beat. There are others with domain knowledge greater than yours who would have removed, or contested my statements, and the reference to my dissertation if these were indeed unhelpful, or misleading. (My statements are provocative enough, and so is my dissertation) That neither have been removed, or contested for months should tell you something. In any case, I've raised the issue on the

talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way, don't be so sure that "no-one removed my edits" == "my edits were fine"! All sorts of inappropriate material (nonsense, vandalism, self-promotion, etc.) sneaks its way into Wikipedia articles all the time, and often sits around for months or years before anyone notices. The people that read the talk page are typically the people that "police" the corresponding article page, so if your guess that perhaps no-one will read that talk page without prompting is correct, that could also explain why some of your edits stuck around for a while. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? I've done some deleting on

talk) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I did some digging. It turns out that your application of

talk) 07:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In response:

• You are correct about
  WP:N
  ; however the criteria it sets out are, in practice, typically used as a benchmark for article content as well. If we didn't do this, it would be a free-for-all of people adding mentions to all sorts of non-notable research.
• I never claimed that it wasn't a reliable source!
• There's a difference between citing your own work to back up existing article content, and adding a section to an article about your own work. This is a case of the latter, and that is a conflict-of-interest. With respect, the fact that you are now fighting tooth-and-nail to get this reinstated is a further indication of COI.
• As I've already said, unless you get some kind of consensus (basically at the thread you've set up at
  WP:COI). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

With respect to your third point:

• Since when is engaging in a civil discussion, even a long one, an indication of misconduct? Aren't discussions like this supposed to make Wikipedia better? Your assumption that I've engaged with you here in bad faith is rather cynical. I'm actually enjoying this, and have learned quite a bit about Wikipedia and its policies.
• If you follow the link I provided previously ([4]), you'll see that in the revision I want to revert to, the generative fixation hypothesis does not have its own section, and is mentioned in the Criticism of the Building Block Hypothesis subsection.
• I misstated my objection to your sentence "This was added as a COI edit; linking to one's own PhD thesis almost never acceptable!". What I should have said is that an edit that violates
  Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest
  . This same section also has the following to say to editors dealing with conflict of interest edits: "Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage".

As far as I can see, the only rationale for barring me from mentioning my work is if you know that an impartial domain expert writing from a neutral point of view would not mention my work. Note: the domain expert is under no obligation to mention only work that has been cited. Since, by your own admission, you are not a domain expert, you aren't in a position to make this call.

So, I ask again, I'd like to roll the section on the building block hypothesis back to its state in the following revision [5]. Do you object?

talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Oli, your latest comments suggest that you are not just, as you put it, nowhere close to being an expert on genetic algorithms, you actually have little, if any, knowledge about the field. If you read my edits (and what I've repeated at different points in our conversation) you'll see that I've never said that the "generative fixation hypothesis is the only plausible explanation for the capacity of genetic algorithms". What I've said is that the generative fixation hypothesis [6] is, *to date*, the only plausible explanation for the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms *with uniform crossover*. Do you understand the difference between the general class of genetic algorithms and the specific class of genetic algorithms with uniform crossover (UGAs)? Do you know that UGAs frequently outperform genetic algorithms with one point crossover, even though according to the building block hypothesis they shouldn't? Are you aware that since 1989, when the utility of uniform crossover was first highlighted, there has been no serious attempt to provide an explanation for the adaptive capacity of GAs that use this form of crossover, much less explain why they outperform GAs with one-point crossover? Do you know how deeply the Building Block Hypothesis, despite its shortcomings, continues to influence contemporary research in evolutionary computation? Do you understand the repercussions of any new theory that lays the building block hypothesis to rest? Can you appreciate why such a theory might not get cited immediately? Do you care to educate yourself about "details" such as these?

You seem to care more about justifying your use of one-size-fits-all instruments to mechanically decide whether an edit stays or goes---no matter what the article. Having settled on the existence of citations as one of your tools, you wield it in a heavy handed way, feeling little obligation to dig further. Are you capable of recognizing that there are limits to the kind of policing that one can constructively do with little to no domain knowledge?

talk) 04:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I did some googling. It turns out that papers of mine that became chapters 2 and 3 of my dissertation have been cited in two recent Ph.D. dissertations: [7], and [8]. Does this satisify you?

talk) 06:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The specifics of what your thesis are totally irrelevant from the point of view of writing an encyclopaedia article. I've already covered what is relevant. Arguments such as "why such a theory might not get cited immediately?" are also irrelevant; either something is notable and covered now, or it isn't. The latter does not preclude it from becoming notable and covered in the future; if it does, then that's when it will be time to think about discussing it in a Wiki article. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 11:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your application of

WP:N

itself. Explicitly. At the top of the page. I have trouble understanding exactly which part of "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence" you don't understand. Wikipedia is not Citationpedia!

My goal is to improve Wikipedia for its readers, not to make it easy for you to do your chosen job. I wish you would recognize that there will be times when, as a non-expert, you won't be able to tell whether an edit benefits or hurts Wikipedia's readers. When this happens, it's okay to let others with more domain knowledge decide.

A question to ask yourself is what would have happened if Wikipedia had existed in the nineteenth century, and if in 1866, right after publishing his work on inheritance in pea plants,

talk) 05:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's clear you have a problem with the applicability of

WP:N to article content. They're the very antithesis of your notion that "Wikipedia is a new frontier", as the aim is for it to be the exact opposite. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I certainly agree about Wikipedia not being a "new frontier" in this sense - the mendel example is good: his theories, as important as they were ultimately, wouldn't receive much treatment on wikipedia until they had achieved a certain level of notoriety.

wp:COI, I would wait until someone else did the including, although this is easy for me to say given the likelihood of me ever writing papers such as this - anyway not a hard requirement. I have no opinion about the case at hand, regrettably I know very little about the theory behind GAs. Heh - my main complaint was the article forking, so I am happy since [9]. Thank you both for your work on this page. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (

Hello Oli, could you please explain why are links to some (evolutionary algorithm) implementations inappropriate? When in a separate section, of course. These links were _very_ helpful to me at the time I was getting introduced to the field, and are still useful to some of my colleagues/students. I should mention that I only copied them from the previous 'External links' section. Regoc (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have something valuable to contribute, why not just stay the hell out of there? You appear to know absolutely nothing about the subject. Thanks! --67.171.80.50 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I beg to differ. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have offered to mediate this. Please indicate your acceptance or lack on the mediation page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you reverted my simplification of the

I noticed you commented on this a while back. It was a real mess so I took a little time to work on it. Only a start, but my idea is to try to balance between being technically correct but not bury the reader in jargon. I think the plan was to focus this article more on the original technical meaning (although wideband might be the place for that too?). But I thought I needed to mention a little about the new vague buzzword using by politicians and marketers. There are many of those articles than need to be cleaned up too, but time is short. Would appreciate any comments, e.g. is this the right direction? Do you have a good base reference, or a suggestion for a diagram maybe? W Nowicki (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,

I saw the wiki page, but I couldn't find any examples using actual numbers evaluating the formula. Could you give some examples of convolution, please? Mathijs Krijzer (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

The convolution of f and g is written f∗g, using an asterisk or star. It is defined as the integral of the product of the two functions after one is reversed and shifted. As such, it is a particular kind of integral transform:

${\displaystyle (f*g)(t)\ \ \,}$	${\displaystyle {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }f(\tau )\,g(t-\tau )\,d\tau }$
	${\displaystyle =\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }f(t-\tau )\,g(\tau )\,d\tau .}$       (commutativity)

Domain of definition

The convolution of two complex-valued functions on R^d

${\displaystyle (f*g)(x)=\int _{\mathbf {R} ^{d}}f(y)g(x-y)\,dy}$

is well-defined only if f and g decay sufficiently rapidly at infinity in order for the integral to exist. Conditions for the existence of the convolution may be tricky, since a blow-up in g at infinity can be easily offset by sufficiently rapid decay in f. The question of existence thus may involve different conditions on f and g.

Circular discrete convolution

When a function g_N is periodic, with period N, then for functions, f, such that f∗g_N exists, the convolution is also periodic and identical to:

${\displaystyle (f*g_{N})[n]\equiv \sum _{m=0}^{N-1}\left(\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }{f}[m+kN]\right)g_{N}[n-m].\,}$

Circular convolution

When a function g_T is periodic, with period T, then for functions, f, such that f∗g_T exists, the convolution is also periodic and identical to:

${\displaystyle (f*g_{T})(t)\equiv \int _{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}\left[\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }f(\tau +kT)\right]g_{T}(t-\tau )\,d\tau ,}$

where t_o is an arbitrary choice. The summation is called a periodic summation of the function f.

Discrete convolution

For complex-valued functions f, g defined on the set Z of integers, the discrete convolution of f and g is given by:

${\displaystyle (f*g)[n]\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ \sum _{m=-\infty }^{\infty }f[m]\,g[n-m]}$

${\displaystyle =\sum _{m=-\infty }^{\infty }f[n-m]\,g[m].}$       (commutativity)

When multiplying two polynomials, the coefficients of the product are given by the convolution of the original coefficient sequences, extended with zeros where necessary to avoid undefined terms; this is known as the Cauchy product of the coefficients of the two polynomials.

Thanks for burning the heresy in the Orthogonalization article. Unfortunately, you did not go forth to destroy its main source and the heretical article, as well as many links to it, persisted for five more years. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...You added some text to the cycles per second article, the text saying that the change from CPS to Hz was "not without its critics". I'm removing that text today as it has been unreferenced this whole time. If you have a reference, feel free to restore the bit. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Has anyone let you know that an article you created, List of EDGE networks has been proposed for deletion by other editors, and listed for deletion three times? - Just thought you'd like to know. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of EDGE networks‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hello, Oli Filth. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oli Filth. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oli Filth! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Ubiquity and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Ubiquity}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ubiquity (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oli Filth

Thank you for creating

Put the

Gothic chess

on its own page.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Order of а modulation. Since you had some involvement with the Order of а modulation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:MSK CPFSK.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Polyamorph and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created,

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]