User talk:SingularityEye
SingularityEye, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi SingularityEye! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC) |
June 2021
[edit]
Hello, I'm Njd-de. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Reply: the contributions added were all about scientific research that was very related to the contents of the article edited and they were both referenced and supported by published scientific articles. The contributions were neither promotional nor advertising. Scientific data mining and data mining process automation are major directions in the field and worth being added to the data mining page. In addition, the contribution added to CRISP-DM was also relevant, since the published process model is considered an extension and improvement to CRISP-DM. I am happy to revise my contributions if you have suggestions, but undo them all is not right. User:SingularityEye
- Please see Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam. The work you added has 1 citation from a preprint, and is not as "widely used" as you claimed, on the contrary, it is exotic. This is very indicative of a conflict of interests, aka "citation spam". TooMuchSpam (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- TooMuchSpam (talk) The citations you are referring to is not spam. The work was a result of a four years funded research project that was conducted at Aberystwyth University, UK. The work went through rigorous scientific validation in four phases. The main reference is in fact a refereed IEEE journal article that has a high impact factor and indexed both Web of Science (Clarivate) and Q1 Scopus indexed article that was published 18 November 2020 (six months ago). New scientific publications are judged by their quality, results, sounding scientific methodology and contribution to knowledge rather than by the number of citations. For example, news articles regarding Covid-19 are sometimes reported by news before being cited and sometimes even before they get published. Yet, as far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy regarding the number of citations used for its sources, otherwise, this policy should also be applied to all its edited contributions and article which is not true even for the same article. Citations to all sources are acceptable in Wikipedia, but as you know the strongest form of citations is to scientific journal articles. The other citations are preprints, that supports the content of the main IEEE publication. The information added is very relevant to the content of the edited article as the scientific data mining process is different from the CRISP-DM process which was originally designed for business applications. In addition, the polls which are referred to in the same section are less relevant to the edited topic and can be considered promotional. CRISP-DM is a famous process model, but not the only one. Adding contents that refer to other process models including those developed recently is more useful and appropriate than referring to polls that promote only one very old process model that has been published more than 25 years ago in an important and ever-growing field such as data mining User:SingularityEye.
- Once it is an established methodology, your "MeKDDaM" may be added to the article. Right now, it is just something you proposed, not something that is being widely used. In fact, it is not used by anybody else apparently: [1]. Wikipedia is not an index of all published research, that would be unreadable and useless. As this appears to be your own work, you clearly have a conflict of interest, and must not add it to the article, also not by using some IP as a proxy. This is inappropriate behavior, and considered citation spam. TooMuchSpam (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your message above is totally unacceptable and inappropriate. It is in fact, an example of prejudice and your abuse of editing privileges that is given by Wikipedia to suppress and ruin the contributions of others. While I have no problem in discussing the matter with you in the context of Wikipedia policies, you have no right to electronically bully others. The words that you have used in your message "useless" express your lack of professionality, lack of respect and lack of delicacy. It also confirms your total ignorance in the field of "data mining" which make you totally unfit to make any contributions, editing of the article or make any other judgments regarding the contributions of others. The cited work was examined by world-class scientists and experts in the field and it is currently catalogued by the British national library. The cited paper was published by IEEE after been reviewed by peer reviewers in one of its world-class Scopus indexed Q1 and Web of Science indexed journals which have an h-index of 127. SingularityEye (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Once it is an established methodology, your "MeKDDaM" may be added to the article. Right now, it is just something you proposed, not something that is being widely used. In fact, it is not used by anybody else apparently: [1]. Wikipedia is not an index of all published research, that would be unreadable and useless. As this appears to be your own work, you clearly have a conflict of interest, and must not add it to the article, also not by using some IP as a proxy. This is inappropriate behavior, and considered citation spam. TooMuchSpam (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- TooMuchSpam (talk) The citations you are referring to is not spam. The work was a result of a four years funded research project that was conducted at Aberystwyth University, UK. The work went through rigorous scientific validation in four phases. The main reference is in fact a refereed IEEE journal article that has a high impact factor and indexed both Web of Science (Clarivate) and Q1 Scopus indexed article that was published 18 November 2020 (six months ago). New scientific publications are judged by their quality, results, sounding scientific methodology and contribution to knowledge rather than by the number of citations. For example, news articles regarding Covid-19 are sometimes reported by news before being cited and sometimes even before they get published. Yet, as far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy regarding the number of citations used for its sources, otherwise, this policy should also be applied to all its edited contributions and article which is not true even for the same article. Citations to all sources are acceptable in Wikipedia, but as you know the strongest form of citations is to scientific journal articles. The other citations are preprints, that supports the content of the main IEEE publication. The information added is very relevant to the content of the edited article as the scientific data mining process is different from the CRISP-DM process which was originally designed for business applications. In addition, the polls which are referred to in the same section are less relevant to the edited topic and can be considered promotional. CRISP-DM is a famous process model, but not the only one. Adding contents that refer to other process models including those developed recently is more useful and appropriate than referring to polls that promote only one very old process model that has been published more than 25 years ago in an important and ever-growing field such as data mining User:SingularityEye.
- Please see Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam. The work you added has 1 citation from a preprint, and is not as "widely used" as you claimed, on the contrary, it is exotic. This is very indicative of a conflict of interests, aka "citation spam". TooMuchSpam (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)