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 discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
MLOps
Hi! Why was the MLOPs page reverted as user 103.70.199.52 suggested? The included paper is very popular in the MLOps community on LinkedIn and has already gained multiple citations. It is a great overview and should be used there as it provides a solid definition of the term. As an MLOps expert, I would ask you to please look into that carefully. 185.124.144.98 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Popularity on social media is not a reason to include something here, especially not something from an unreliable source like arxiv. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why is a well-cited arXiv paper with a rigour methodology less worth than a towardsdatascience article (which is listed in the sources)? 185.124.144.98 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- The first section of the article seems outdated:
- - there is one blog post on AI trends from 2018, that is not retrievable anymore
- - there is one Gartner study from 2020, that has been archived by Gartner themselves and is not retrievable anymore
- The discipline evolves and the recent paper seems to provide a solid definition that was already discussed lengthy in the MLOps community on Twitter and LinkedIn. 2003:EE:1705:39AB:7C96:27A:D5AE:D172 (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Again, that something is popular on social media has nothing to do with Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Again, the first section of the article seems outdated:
- - there is one blog post on AI trends from 2018, that is not retrievable anymore
- - there is one Gartner study from 2020, that has been archived by Gartner themselves and is not retrievable anymore
- Wikipedia should be a trusted resource. Outdated, non-scientific information and articles, that have been withdrawn by authors themselves do not fulfil that criterion. 85.195.241.170 (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am entering the discussion here: I believe the current version of the Wiki article does neither provide a good definition of MLOps nor does it give an adequate overview of the topic. Including the definition from the mentioned manuscript would significantly improve the Wiki article. From a methodological standpoint, deriving a definition from the review of 27 peer-reviewed articles, 11 tools and 8 interviews is sound and more reliable than the current version of the Wiki article (even though the manuscript does not seem to be peer-reviewed). However, many other Wiki articles are based on well-cited arXiv paper, so this should not be an exclusion criteria. Just my 2 cents. Nz2004 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a venue to promote arxiv preprints and other self published stuff, please stop cluttering my talk page with this. Am I being brigaded by people from this linkedin community or something? Very poor form if so. MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree with you that Wikipedia is no place for self-promotion. In this case, however, I see a comprehensive definition of the term MLOPs. People are using Wikipedia to receive short and precise definitions and the mentioned manuscript provides one, which is derived in a rigor way. What is the argument, on a content level, to exclude that definition here? 2A00:1398:5:0:F4A4:5513:B840:3146 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not use self published materials as citations. If there are other bad sources, that is not a reason to add more. I am done responding to this on my user talk page, which is not an appropriate venue for this discussion. Please take the hint and stop posting here, whoever you people all are. MrOllie (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is plain out wrong. On the very same Wiki page on MLOps multiple sources are self published materials like blog posts or slides. I can understand you do not want to continue the discussion, but, if you are not willing to discuss this on a content level, who is? Where can we have an honest, objective conversation about this? 80.137.220.210 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not use self published materials as citations. If there are other bad sources, that is not a reason to add more. I am done responding to this on my user talk page, which is not an appropriate venue for this discussion. Please take the hint and stop posting here, whoever you people all are. MrOllie (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree with you that Wikipedia is no place for self-promotion. In this case, however, I see a comprehensive definition of the term MLOPs. People are using Wikipedia to receive short and precise definitions and the mentioned manuscript provides one, which is derived in a rigor way. What is the argument, on a content level, to exclude that definition here? 2A00:1398:5:0:F4A4:5513:B840:3146 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a venue to promote arxiv preprints and other self published stuff, please stop cluttering my talk page with this. Am I being brigaded by people from this linkedin community or something? Very poor form if so. MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am entering the discussion here: I believe the current version of the Wiki article does neither provide a good definition of MLOps nor does it give an adequate overview of the topic. Including the definition from the mentioned manuscript would significantly improve the Wiki article. From a methodological standpoint, deriving a definition from the review of 27 peer-reviewed articles, 11 tools and 8 interviews is sound and more reliable than the current version of the Wiki article (even though the manuscript does not seem to be peer-reviewed). However, many other Wiki articles are based on well-cited arXiv paper, so this should not be an exclusion criteria. Just my 2 cents. Nz2004 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Again, that something is popular on social media has nothing to do with Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why is a well-cited arXiv paper with a rigour methodology less worth than a towardsdatascience article (which is listed in the sources)? 185.124.144.98 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Reverting
Why did you undo revision 1097729680? My intention was to contribute, not to vandalize or self-advertise. 186.137.76.153 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is a list of software that already has a Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
European Association of Distance Teaching Universities
I have added information about the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities in Distance education. Is a new article about it better? --Tiberio Feliz 00:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfeliz (talk • contribs)
- You keep adding promotional text about that organization. Are you associated with it in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Subjective Databases Table
Hi! I would like to know if I could somehow edit Subjective Datasets table, which was posted on Subjective video quality page, to level out any discrepancies with the Wikipedia formatting rules (overlong list of external links). May be I should reduce it or just add additional columns such as «Databases official websites» (like it was presented here)? And thanks for your work on improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. Supremum of tilt (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a problem with 'formatting rules' - Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link directory, catalog, or indiscriminate collection of information. I don't believe that list belongs on an encyclopedia at all. Formatting the links slightly differently will not solve that. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- But may I simply leave only ~5 biggest and most valuable (famous) datasets in the table (removing some optional columns)? I observe such «Comparison tables» quite often in Wikipedia. Supremum of tilt (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Those tables are nearly always limited to notable entries and/or entries that have a preexisting Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- But may I simply leave only ~5 biggest and most valuable (famous) datasets in the table (removing some optional columns)? I observe such «Comparison tables» quite often in Wikipedia. Supremum of tilt (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Publishing article on wikipedia
Hi, I have written an article/blog on react native security practices which I have posted on my official website. That blog is performing really well on Google SERP. Now I thought to publish the same article on wikipedia so that it can provide more value to the reader and can be helpful for the reader community. I have tried multiple times but everytime I got the massage that my article is voilating the copyright policy. I am not able to understand why this is happening. That is my own article which I have written which I am trying to write here again. Can you please look into this matter can help me out.
It would be great if I get a help in the matter.
Thanks is advance.
Mayank Mayank1695 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a blog host, it doesn't host howto type articles on security practices. Even if you resolved the copyright issues, it would be deleted on that basis. You should keep your blog style writing on your own blog. MrOllie (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Why was my edit reverted?
My edit was a simple extension of the current content - there was nothing wrong with it. So why was it rejected? KeepOnHiking (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- You added an improper external link, see WP:EL. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Edit war
You think I want to fight you? I have clients I made $3000 on if anything that make hundreds of thousands cleaning the air ducts at the Bays I did just so my fellows can have fresh air in there. I could be taking over the market in the states for us today and instead I talk to you. Now there is a perfectly good error in my edit for you to revert it with, you can't revert it for no consensus legitimately. Visualize it up top and delete the up top until the person you're suing can't write the same thing as you up top, or it's going to happen. Canadiansteve (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)