Talk:Peter Nordin/Archive 1

Verifiability

To comply with the very important verifiability rule, make sure that every fact is cited to an independent, secondary reliable source (like a biographical newspaper article, say). Info that isn't backed up by outside sources can eventually get deleted, especially in biographical articles. Also, I still am waiting to hear from Jan-Olof Yxell about whether the image can be released under a free license. Most Wikipedia editors will not be satisfied with the current situation. I'm going to wait a couple more days and then put it up for review. Sorry about that.. nadav (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been keeping an eye on this article and I agree more sources are needed. How does this contributor relate to the subject of the article?

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how they know each other. Have you also been following the discussion about the picture on Rogerfgay's talk page? And yes, it's always good to keep an eye out. nadav (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I did notice there was something with that image, but I didn't follow that discussion. However, the article is under development, so lets just wait and see...

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have written to the photographer (Jan) but haven't heard back yet. I hope he hasn't left for vacation. Here in Sweden, that might mean that he won't be back on the job for 6-8 weeks. The country almost closes in the summer. The photographer is a university employee - so I know that one hurdle is crossed. If he was an outside photographer, he might claim some rights. The only thing that's got me wondering is the cultural difference between Sweden and the US. They often treat things very formally (bureaucratically) that we (Americans) are informal (efficient) about, and things we take formally, they often treat very informally. I asked if he's willing to grant a free use license, but if he's not interested, then I think that fair use makes perfect sense. "Just go ahead and use it," is more Swedish - especially from a government source like a university. I'm not a Swedish lawyer, so I don't know if it's in the public domain like US Government stuff is. But it might be, and a government employee might not be someone who grants licenses. Rogerfgay 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: verifiability and the use of references. Hadn't I included the publications list when that comment was made? I'm a little at a loss regarding finding citations for things like his birth date or the name of his wife, etc. But the publications provide very strong published (peer reviewed even) verification of what he's been up to. Rogerfgay 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope circumstances regarding that image will be straightened out. However, the article's Reference section remains empty. Readers will want to know where the information in the article comes from. Additionally, creating articles such as Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB and Men's News Daily, IMHO, increases the risk this article and other of your contributions will be regarded as pure old spam. Rogerfgay, what is your personal relation to Peter Nordin and to robotics? As far as I can tell, Peter Nordin really deserves an article, but the structure of the article and your contributions make me doubt.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hej Mats. You seem like a guy who likes to live dangerously, right on the edge of personal attack sorts of things. I copied the structure of the article from another well-established roboticist on Wikipedia Rodney Brooks. Why not try answering the questions instead of sitting back and being judgmental? Are you really interested in challenging the guys birth date, his wife's name, or his town of residence? The reference section doesn't have anything in it yet, but I'll probably add something, as soon as I decide what looks like it needs a citation. Are alma maters often verified with a citation? I've met Peter a few times but he lives on the other side of Sweden, in Gothenburg. I live near Stockholm. I founded my own AI company back in the late 1980s and some of my stuff is being applied in robotics. I have also spent time as a journalist and commentator. Regarding your lack of interest in other information, such as Men's News Daily, etc. I know there's an audience that not every entry is of interest to every person but the subjects are well within the scope of existing Wikipedia subjects. So what's up? Why have you chosen to take a threatening posture with me?

(Edit conflict) Hej, hej!

My intention was not to be threatening and, no, I'm not a dangerous person. However, there are still no sources in the article and Men's News Daily actually looks like spam, and only that. For an idea what I mean with using references, please have a look at my own article Drevviken. I don't claim the article is great but it is easy for anyone (understanding Swedish) to find out where what piece of information stems from.

I can see several facts in the first sentence that are not referenced: "Drevviken is a lake in southern Stockholm, Sweden, shared by the four municipalities Stockholm, Haninge, Huddinge, and Tyresö." http://www.natur.huddinge.se/sjoar/drevan/drevvik.htm Rogerfgay 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The state of the MND article is known in Wikipedia-språk as a stub. I have no doubt that MND exits and that the description given in the stub is accurate. I will probably have some time to get back to that later. In the mean time, I'm sending out some email to people who are familiar with the publication, hoping they might have an interest in contributing. I'm not trying to write the whole Wikipedia encyclopedia myself. Rogerfgay 09:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I respect the "work in progress" sign in the article and hope you will develop it in the right direction. But please explain even Alma mater, a simple citation is often more than enough to make others understand the subject of the article is of general interest and not a Tabula rasa.

Aside from the bizarre use of the term tabula rasa, I think you're being silly here. Both universities are linked to their Wikipedia entries. Rogerfgay 09:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope your knowledge to robotics will prove handy on Wikipedia. / Mats Halldin (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, there's a bunch of updating that needs to be done on Wikipedia. There are certainly many more external citations to science and technology stuff than personal stuff; so that's no problem. The basic technology (machine learning, evolutionary algorithms, genetic programming ....) is already on Wikipedia, but not so much about its application in robotics. There is already an entry for Evolutionary robotics, but I've been eyeing that for more editing, along with Humanoid robot, among others. This is an area where much has been happening. Governments all over the world have been pouring money into robotics R&D. We are at the beginning of the age of robots. BTW: I haven't found a Wikipedia entry for "Robot era" or "Age of robots". This should be a non-fiction entry, explaining factually what's going on and its relation to the general evolution of technology. Technological singularity is related.

Once you become more experienced as an editor, you should consider starting a robotics Wikiproject to coordinate efforts with others who have knowledge in this field for the purpose of expanding Wikipedia's robotics coverage. nadav (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that a Wikiproject is quite tempting. I actually like this sort of thing. But I'm unfortunately not in a position to make Wikipedia editing into a major part of my life's work right now. What I have in mind is a bit more focused on just making contributions to update material to include stuff that I know about. Rogerfgay 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is no source about his life details, you don't have to include them. You can stick to what is in sources: discussions of his research, university positions, publications, etc. The verifiability policy is very important for Wikipedia. If there is any conflict of interest here, and I'm not saying there is, then it should be disclosed per WP:COI. Men's News Daily is probably notable. I've restructured that article and added a secondary source. nadav (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on MND page. The Website-stub tag puts it in the proper perspective. I recall the article you referenced. It, or something quite close to it, appeared in major newspaper article somewhere and was on the web. I remember that got enough attention to up his traffic considerably, not long after he started the site. Rogerfgay 12:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking around at other entries for scientists, and find that references in the summary section are quite rare. Challenges may come from other people who know the person / subject involved, based on what they know. But I don't see examples in which every detail is referenced to an external source. As an experienced writer and editor (even though I'm new to Wikipedia), I know that is not normal practice anywhere; and from my survey of other entries, I can see it's not normal on Wikipedia. I am checking facts, which is why it's taking so long to get out of construction mode. I've made some detailed changes to the text these last couple of days after finding more information. I am putting my normal effort into assuring that the facts are accurate and correct. Some details may not have a ref cited, but everything is being checked. Rogerfgay 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(remember to sign comments with four tildes) Many Wikipedia articles are bad, to put it mildly. More optimistically, they are in a continual state of improvement. Citations should be added for pretty much everything in biographical articles especially (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). nadav (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that a chief concern in writing biographical material is the risk of being sued for libel. There is nothing contentious in the article. Perhaps this is why there are not so many references to biographical material in other scientists' entries. Backgrounds are just summaries of things that other people who are familiar with the person know and may be documented in obscure or hard to reach ways - for example, scientific accomplishments are documented in scientific publications, material too obscure for the general public, and not focused enough on the summary point to be of use. Special participation in workshops and conferences are / were documented in conference material in ways that are not accessible on the web, etc. Rogerfgay 11:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think you're over-doing the explanation. I've met his wife. I know she exists and the name is spelled correctly. I'm sure there's a record of their marriage somewhere, but it would be silly to cite it. Everyone knows that marriages are recorded. Universities also have records of who graduated, etc. It's common knowledge. Rogerfgay 09:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Now here's an amazing coincidence. I looked deeper into the background of the article on Rodney Brooks. It was started by User:Matthew Stannard, who also did journalism and published a lot of stuff on family breakup and the importance of fatherhood.

Image - Fair Use accepted

I have received a response from the photographer. He accepts "fair use" of the image, but will not authorize a "free use" license. This conforms to the stated policy at the Chalmers image archive website, as I understand it. What this means, is that Wikipedia does not face any legal problem for "fair use" of the image. The rationalle for fair use is valid. There is no problem in the absense of challenge by the source.

Lead section

A lead section should be added to the article in accordance with the manual of style guideline. This will also prevent the table of contents from appearing in the wrong place. nadav (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at other articles about people and found that they either have very short lead paragraphs or none. Some take the text of the article and treat it as the lead paragraph, which I just don't like very much. It puts the table of contents below the primary text -- a very odd place that seems much less convinient as a way of getting quick information about what's on the page. I'll reformat in the pattern of the Ralph Waldo Emerson page ... but return to my use of "Profile" instead of "Life" because the subject isn't dead yet.

Headers

I've removed the "ToC" link and added a proper section header to the top debate. Remember that new discussions should have their own section header, and the page will automatically create a table of contents once it reaches 4 headers. -- Kesh 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Category Changes

Cyde - I noticed the category changes you made, from entrepreneur to businessperson. (These terms are sometimes used as synonyms.) I looked at the discussion (CFD) for the change, and did not see a clear indication that the change is official; only a vote to save the discussion. So, I do not know if the entrepreneur categories are actually being eliminated and that the changes you made are necessary. Also - it is clear to me that there is a difference between businessperson, entrepreneur, and inventor (maybe the comment re: inventor in the CFD was an illustration rather than ... ??) Anyway - not all business people are entrepreneurs. A business manager at a McDonalds restaurant for example, is not an entrepreneur. Peter Nordin is an entrepreneur who has very little to do with actually managing the businesses that he's been involved in creating. Rogerfgay 08:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyde just runs a bot that implements CfD decisions. You will want to bring this up with either the admin who closed the discussion on the category (User:Kbdank71) or the editor who nominated it (User:Pmanderson). You can open a deletion review if they disagree. nadav (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the fact that you included User:Kbdank71 and User:Pmanderson links mean the they will be automatically informed of this discussion? --Rogerfgay 09:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Automatically informed? I don't know what you mean...You have to post a message on their talk pages. nadav (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. But I've received messages several times now when people have used my link on other pages. I get the notification in red at the top of my page -- something like "You have new messages." I click on it, and it takes me to the page where a link to my user name exists. There is an automatic listing of pages where links to any other page (including user pages). I assumed that when a new link to a user page is created, that the system also automatically generates the message. --Rogerfgay 09:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That list is generated as you click on the Special:Whatlinkshere/User talk:Rogerfgay link. The only time a user is "automatically informed" is when someone adds a comment on that persons talk page (i.e. I got a "red notification" when you dropped a message on User talk:Mats Halldin). To stay tuned you (and everyone else) have to use Special:Watchlist, a list which is individual.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I really wanted to understand that clearly. --Rogerfgay 11:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Not a Resume

The page contains a profile, just as many other pages of notable people contain profiles that focus on material related to the reason the person is notable. I am removing the Resume template once again, and want to warn against vandalism if it returns. I am involved in dicussions about the biography classification, even though the biography classification is not problematic just now. I'm doing it because I believe it could help improve classification. Seeing that discussion and then placing a resume template on the page just to irritate me, is just rude. --Rogerfgay 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the article is just a list of publications and bulletted accomplishments... basic resume stuff. It should be mostly prose to be a proper encyclopedia biography. --W.marsh 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogerfgay, on Wikipedia all articles about individuals are biographies. That template is not intended to irritate you, it is a request to have the article confirm to general Wikipedia guidelines. If you manage to reach a consensus concerning a new classification of biography articles, feel free to remove the tag at that time. Meanwhile, please allow others to edit the article in accordance with present guidelines.

Please also note the link "like a resume" in that template leads to the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The term profile is found on the biography page, which is used by the Biography project in defining the scope of their project. This project is where the biography tag / classification is handled. According to definition, a profile is not a biography. AND BTW: I think you've gone too far in classifying this as a resume with conflict of interest. If Peter Nordin created the page, you might have a case. The fact that the article is not so complete as a full-blown biography may suggest to some that it should be expanded - but labeling it as a conflict of interest appears to be harassment. If harassment is not what you intend, and you are trying to make objective judgments, please consider that negative information in a biography is against the rules completely unless there are very solid references / citations to support negative claims. (More generally then, one should be certain of information about a person.) Peter Nordin is included as a notable person because of his work in AI and robotics. That's why a Wikipedia entry has been created. Information related to his work is available and well documented. The information presented is reasonably scoped - "reasonably" scoped regardless of whether there is a preference to expand it. I am not against expansion, but the information that is available is limited. I do not have his life story. No one has produced that yet. Some consideration must be given to what is practical and appropriate for coverage of the subject. Wikipedia is an ongoing project along with every page. As this guy becomes more famous and more information becomes available, the article can be expanded. --Rogerfgay 09:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether biographies ("profiles" is Rogerfgay's preferred word, though biography is the Wikipedia jargon) of academics should contain complete lists of works has proven controversial on Wikipedia. Some opinions at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) hold that the list should be complete (with the article body explaining which publications are the more notable ones) and others agree that a full list is "unencyclopedic" or resume-like. In practice, DGG (who is an expert on this) tells me that the latter opinion has usually won out. Interestingly, for artists or deceased individuals this has been less of an issue. nadav (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The term profile - explained just above in my response to Mats Halldin. The work of this scientist in this particular field is the second most cited in the world by other researchers in peer reviewed journals. Every one of his published articles (some of which have won awards) is a gem. As his profile explains, he was one of the earliest researchers to jump on the Genetic programming band-wagon. (The most cited in the world is the guy who created the band-wagon.) If you google Peter Nordin robot genetic or some such thing, you'll find thousands of entries. I don't have such a philosophical position on the number of articles that should be included. I just don't see reason for excluding any of them. I'm not sure which side of the general argument I'd be on. What I see when I look at Nordin's list, are closely related works that make up a whole - kind of like a book or two in which the only description is by naming all the chapters. --Rogerfgay 09:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections

The "Profile" sections, which is basically the only substantial section of the article, should be broken down into logical subsections. This large monolithic block of text is difficult to deal with. nadav (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(Side note: Now that I have a better grasp of how to get around at Wikipedia and find things out, I have discovered that it was Quadell who carried out the disruptive campaigning exercise related to the fair-use image discussion. I apologize for thinking that it was you; I note that you were disturbed at one point that I appeared to be demonizing you. That was a mistake on my part. I honstely thought it was you simply because I did see that you had asked for other opinions. I also note that you did not seem to have had any part in the disruptive behavior of N. BTW: N is still stalking me (and seems to have been joined by W.marsh) making it more difficult to participate in Wikipedia. User:Kviki is still blocked as a sockpuppet, even though the facts never warrented blocking.) --Rogerfgay 09:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning to N

User:N - Thanks to you, I've studied Wikipedia rules regarding Wikipedia:Harassment more closely (as well as the one's on sockpuppetry, and even understand how sockpuppetry accusations are used in harassment). I want you to know that I'm keeping a record, related to your stalking behavior and other disruptions. It would be better for all concerned, if you would stop; that includes adding tags in order to follow up with destructive editing on pages that I've worked on. --Rogerfgay 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RFC is ---> that way if you wany to accuse me of anything. Yes, I do keep this article on my watchlist. Making the article comply with guidelines and policy is not destructive editing. If you believe otherwise feel free to report me! -N 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess was that you'd fight it. That's why I'm keeping a record. --Rogerfgay 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Embedded List

User:N - You seem to be acting on any excuse you can find to destruct and disrupt. Such also seems to be the case regarding your most recent deletion (containing comment with more to come threat) from the article as well, claiming a Wikipedia:Embedded lists argument. May I suggest that if you want to become a productive editor, spend more time studying the rules and trying to follow them rather than simply going for quantity. The article is constructed in prose rather than in embedded list form. --Rogerfgay 10:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

N is correct in that articles should not be composed mostly of lists. It would be better to turn the important parts of the list into prose and integrate that into the body. nadav (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you guys would test these ideas on the many other notable people entries at Wikipedia first. I started by looking at existing Wikipedia examples, and took a representative one as my original template. This article is similar to many others that have not had problems with acceptance. At the very least, perhaps you could take the others through the first few steps before coming back to this one. That would help maintain consistency in the form of articles and editing practices. Also, it might allow you the opportunity to get feedback from someone besides me. That could work as a real quality control mechanism. --Rogerfgay 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Please look at the description of embedded lists before making a judgement about that. The article is not composed of embedded lists. If you have a problem with listed information (which is quite common on Wikipedia), don't rest it on N's embedded lists argument. The use of embedding in the article is correct according to the MOS. --Rogerfgay 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

N's argument re: embedded lists has to do with Wikipedia:Embedded_lists. --Rogerfgay 12:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Look... uh, maybe you should look at articles from Wikipedia:Featured articles before assuming what is in one article is automatically okay in any article. We have nearly 2 million articles... even if you edited 100 articles a day, it would be 7 years before you could work on every article. Not every article is going to perfectly comply with all of our standards, guidelines and policies. The solution isn't to create more articles that don't comply, it's to fix the ones we come across that don't comply. Look at what actual good biographies are on Wikipedia, and you'll find they don't contain unreadable ultra-long paragraphs and huge resume-like lists of everything the guy's ever signed his name to. Everyone seems to be saying this, Rogerfgay, instead of stubbornly thinking it's harassment, maybe you should accept you have a few things to learn about Wikipedia. --W.marsh 12:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editor

I came to give input on RfC but looking at article and talk page, I do not think the RfC's or issues in the RfCs are number one priority. The article is almost unreadable in present form. There is much to do. There is the long long paragraph, distracting wikilinking, many names and accomplishments crammed together like writing up the career finishes for a horse at the race track. What stands out in the article is about Elvis and Priscilla because it more noticeable since is one of few words not wikilinked and the image to go with is missing.

There is no need for RfC about a cleanup tag. The article needs cleanup. The RfCs are not easy to follow. And are the only comments made so far by involved editors? Contentious argument in the areas reserved for RfC will discourage many uninvolved editors from leaving feedback.Venado 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried to get the other editors to treat the RfC area properly - but just as in everything else, they refused and continued a contentious dispute there. --Rogerfgay 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Inclusion of Corporate Spin-offs section

This is a dispute about inclusion / deletion of a section listing corporate spin-offs based on Peter Nordin's academic work.
Note: The list has been deleted from the page, but can be viewed through history; e.g. 18:45, 27 June 2007 and before.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The fact that this individual is involved in commercialization is part of who he is, and the impact he's had on the world that makes him especially noteworthy. Rogerfgay 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• There are 21 corporate spin-offs based on Peter Nordin's work. It would be inappropriate to create a long sentence to contain the list; i.e. a list is the proper presentation. Rogerfgay 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• The list itself is not an embedded list, i.e. not a list of other Wikipedia articles; and only constituted one section of the article. Rogerfgay 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well no, it was becoming a list of external links with no other information. The page you refer to offers an excellent example of Prose versus List with no content - please read it. Briefly describing why these spin-offs were created and what they achieved (using appropriate sources of course) would easily make prose out of that section.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Corporate spin-offs are an important ingredient in the whole recipe that makes this person notable. --Rogerfgay 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Most of the article's sources are primary sources, like lists of Peter Nordin's accomplishments or his past activities. The only actual journalistic coverage is from the BBC and an article written by one "Roger F. Gay" for an online news source called Men's News Daily. Per WP:PSTS most of an article's sources should be secondary sources, such as journalistic coverage. The embedded lists policy plainly says that lists should be integrated into prose when possible and that items should only be included when they qualify for their own article. I think a small list integrated into prose of the most notable spin-offs would work nicely in the article. -N 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Above comment seems to be off the typic of this dispute, and may be discussed in other disputes. Rogerfgay 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Jounalistic coverage, among other references; now far fewer because of the reference deletions. See other disputes. But what does this have to do with deletion of the corporate spin-offs section? --Rogerfgay 14:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Information in the article is well documented; far better than typical. Rogerfgay 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Well-documented"? : Most of the external links in the references section are links to sites mentioning related topics at best. Bokfynd is a commercial site offering that book for sale. Liber is just a link to the main page of one of the biggest publishers in Sweden. RoboBusiness: Robots that Dream of Being Better is an article you wrote. Sten Gustafssons fond för morgondagens entreprenör is a page describing a scholarship to be applied for. Etcetera, Etcetera... / Mats Halldin (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • See my comment under N's comment about the journalistic references. Also; bokfynd is a supportive reference related to the book. I don't mind it's removal so long as it doesn't lead to a complaint that there's no reference supporting the existence of the book. Liber is the publisher of the book. But what does this have to do with deletion of the corporate spin-offs section? --Rogerfgay 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Information documenting Peter Nordin's contributions has been deleted by editors involved in these disputes. See other disputes. Rogerfgay 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Content not conforming to Wikipedia standards have been removed from the article. Which "other disputes" are you referring to? / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Mats - is, is not - is, is not - this is why a RfC has been filed. FYI (again) - The article is definitely not constructed as an embedded list. The cited rule was definitely not violated. Lists are used when appropriate. Whether or not this particular list is included is a matter of POV on content. I'm aware that it's better not to have a long list whenever a short comment serves as well. I've explained that in this case, it doesn't - a content POV based on knowledge of the subject. It's tiresome to debate people who do not seem to actually read or understand the rules and guidelines that they refer to; far too much when they post tags, force their POVs, and engage in revert wars to enforce their will. It all seems more like vandalism then collaborative editing. --Rogerfgay 10:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• The article does not contain contraversial statements of a person that need extra care to verify. Rogerfgay 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Its does. (See below.) / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (again) does, does not - does, does not - If you need to have the last word, I'll let you post another "does" in response to this. --Rogerfgay 10:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Request for Comment: Inclusion of Publications section

This is a dispute about inclusion / deletion of a section listing publications based Peter Nordin's academic work.
Note: The list has been deleted from the page, but can be viewed through history; e.g. 17:55, 27 June 2007 and before.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• A bibliography of peer-reviewed scholarly articles is relevant to the biography of an academic. Rogerfgay 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• The article does not contain contraversial statements of a person that need extra care to verify. Rogerfgay 17:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Peter Nordin is the second most cited academic in his field; with published work that is extremely influential. Rogerfgay 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Says who? / Mats Halldin (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Says the record. Citations are recorded in books and current citations can be found through automated online search engines. People know about citations. It's a common measure of the influence work has in a field. If I were in the US, I could visit a university library and easily come up with a citation index reference - dated in context of the statement. I chose to include the statement even though I'm not in the US, so I can't get that done myself. It is common knowledge amongst people who do the science (and anyone else engaged in academic / scholarly work), that these indexes exist, and citation counts are common; so anyone in the field who wants to check the claim, would know how. Including such a reference is sort of like referring people to a dictionary to find out what a word in a statement means. They know that. --Rogerfgay 10:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well then, if there is such an abundance of records backing up your claims, why don't you use one of them as a reference in the article? Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be written for "people how do science" or "anyone in the field". Mats Halldin
        • There are content / editing decisions that can be made better by people who understand the content. Such is life. Nothing about inclusion of the information thwarts a non-scientists effort to understand the subject. In fact, even the non-scientist editors who've been discussing these issues were able to glean information from information in the list; ironically demonstrated in arguments against inclusion of the information. --Rogerfgay 10:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• There does not appear to be a smaller subset of articles that is most important; rather it is the collection that created the effect. Rogerfgay 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Another source of an up-to-date list of publications that can be linked or cited has not been found. Rogerfgay 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• The works themselves have not been consolidated to allow reference to the consolidated work rather than each. Rogerfgay 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• The list did not constitute the article as a whole; merely one section in the page. Rogerfgay 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• The academic publications are an important ingredient in the recipe that makes this person notable. Rogerfgay 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the policy at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works) and I am forced to agree a publications section might be reasonable. However this list included many articles that Peter Nordin was not the primary author of, where he just has a byline, and further the list of works guideline appears to apply only to bibliographies. It most certainly does not apply to every article a person have ever written. Just my 2 pence. -N 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Science / engineering is often done in groups today. Things have gotten far too complicated for it to be dominated by single person efforts. If that's a reason for exclusion, then we'll have to start ignoring most of the science and technological advances from about 1975 forward. --Rogerfgay 10:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Request for Comment: use of sections tag

This is a dispute about inclusion of a sections tag.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The page is already appropriately divided into 6 (or more) relevant sections. Rogerfgay 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• It's the giant paragraph that needs to at least be broken down into readable length paragraphs... sections would probably be best. --W.marsh 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You should suggest changes rather than trying to force a POV on contributing editors. --Rogerfgay 10:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • All we're doing is suggesting... this RFC is beyond absurd. --W.marsh 13:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If suggesting something is what you have in mind, remove the sections tag and leave your suggestion on the talk page. Posting inappropriate tags and then engaging in a revert war is not the appropriate way to express your POV. --Rogerfgay 14:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• The amount of argumentation you've spun to get out of doing ridiculously basic and simple stuff - like splitting up a too-long paragraph - is just dizzying. No one is agreeing with you... it's time to take a step back and realize maybe you were wrong and veteran article editors actually do know an article should be constructed. --W.marsh 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, you could simply explain your POV on the talk page, where a group of experienced editors like us would easily be able to work out whether you think that a long paragraph should be broken into several paragraphs or you think the material calls for more sections. A group of experienced editors like us might be able to do that easily in the context of a good, friendly, spirit of support for the work and cooperation. Posting multiple tags, being ambiguous, deleting relevant material, engaging in revert wars, bullying tactics, etc. just doesn't help get the work done. Rogerfgay 13:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I think we should just make common sense edits without the red tape. --W.marsh 01:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You seem to be coming round to my POV on this issue; i.e. get rid of the red tape (tags) and put your suggestions on the discussion page, just as Wikipedia civility guidelines suggest. But, as an AI guy with lots of experience, I should warn against too much dependence on "common sense." Close study of the subject has shown wide variations in POV, and disagreements about what "common sense" demands. --Rogerfgay 20:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "experienced users like us"? "a good, friendly, spirit of support"? Rogerfgay, please start with Wikipedia:Welcome - you still got a lot of things to learn. User:Mats Halldin) 10:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You're illustrating typical degeration of the discussion. The point here is that the secions tag is inappropriate, especially when posted for the purpose of forcing a POV. Even a subtle way of calling me ignorant is a personal attack. --Rogerfgay 10:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

In terms of readability, dividing it into blocks (if possible) would be better. I don't see a cleanup tag as the request for comment states. There are already 2 tags which suggests the same thing. Therefore, an additional tag saying a similar thing doesn't help, but clutters. If there were a dispute, then a flame tag may be ok but there is no dispute that I can see (such as there isn't a fight whether the person is a man or woman or intersex) Plumbing 03:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect Plumbing is a sock of DreamGuy. Mikkke2 16:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Plumbing does not have a user page. Identity in doubt. I agree that tags clutter, but the reference to a "clean up tag" in this RfC is out of place. This issue is still up for grabs. --Rogerfgay 20:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: use of cleanup-resume tag

This is a dispute about inclusion of a cleanup-resume tag.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The subject of the page is a notable person, with content related to the reason that he is notable. Rogerfgay 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Information in the article is well documented. Rogerfgay 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not well-documented; only one strong secondary source has been provided about him. The article contains a bunch of unsourced assertions such as "he took the initiative to create the first textbook on genetic programming[4], which is now the most popular GP textbook in the world. By this time, he was already the second most cited researcher in the field of GP." nadav (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It's certainly less well documented now that 41 references and the list of corporate spin-offs have been deleted. See other disputes; especially re: documentation of number of citations above. It's like citing the dictionary for the meaning of words. Anyone who reasonably might check or update the information knows about citation indexes and citation search engines, just as members of the general public know about dictionaries and encyclopedias. I have a copy of his textbook. I'd guess that most people with a major interest in genetic programming have it. It's not a contraversial claim in any sense. --Rogerfgay 10:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• The article does not contain contraversial statements of a person that need extra care to verify. Rogerfgay 17:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes it does. Claims such as the above will eventually be removed by someone if they remain unsourced. Citations must be added per WP:V. nadav (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't. You should first read about contraversial statements in Wikipedia material to find out what it means. There is as always a higher degree of concern and scrutiny and documentation required whenever there is a legal risk; in this case - whether the "contraversial statement" might be libelous. As to your alternative POV; you just don't have sufficient knowledge of the subject to make definitive judgments about what's contraversial in the sense that you mean it. No one in the field of evolutionary robotics doubts Peter Nordin's importance in the field or influence in academics. I have a copy of his text book beside me right now. People who have studied in this field likely have a copy of it too. Small edits might be of worth. But the statements are not contraversial simply because they are outside the scope of your knowledge (especially in the sense of possible liable). --Rogerfgay 10:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Things work this way: if someone challenges a fact, a source must be provided, or else the fact is deleted. There is no expectation that you have to be an expert on the subject to challenge a fact. Leave your analysis of the legal risks out of it and focus on the policy Wikipedia:verifiability. nadav (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• The phrase "like a resume" in the tag links to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; presenting an inappropriate suggestion of bias. Rogerfgay 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I must admit I'm having problem thinking of you as unbiased concerning this article. Since you first created it you've been reverting everyone trying to edit it or having strong opinions about any edits by others. So, yes, this tag is indeed needed. / Mats Halldin (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Assume good faith. Making substantial edits to someone else's work, without knowledge of the subject, with reference to rules that have not been violated, is a tricky business. You should not assume that you are always right. --Rogerfgay 10:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• The article can be expanded, as the tag suggests, in the absense of the tag. Rogerfgay 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • All articles can be expanded, but all articles don't need clean-up. In the absence of this tag, the article is at risk of being expanded with more material needing clean-up. So, no, clean-up the article instead. / Mats Halldin (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You are merely expressing an editing preference. The tag is intended to force a POV on editors who might actually do some constructive work on the page. --Rogerfgay 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If suggesting something is what you have in mind, remove the cleanup-resume tag and leave your suggestion on the talk page. Posting inappropriate tags and then engaging in a revert war is not the appropriate way to express your POV. --Rogerfgay 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments