User talk:Tuyentruongoslo

Tuyentruongoslo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi, the wikipedia rules are very clear. You should avoid citing your own work or projects close to you.

Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable.

At present, your paper doesn't have significant citations - this means that it is not yet generally accepted. Once it gets the required number of citations and becomes generally accepted - it can be part of wikipedia.

User Potamon: Please link here precisely what Wikipedia says about selfpromotion. Does it say that you are absolutely not allowed to write anything related to you? Now, don't say about citations, it does not say anything. Papers which get a lot of citations, like the one about Adam method, can be totally wrong. What is the number of citations required which you talked about and what do you mean by generally accepted, again please give proper reference from Wikipedia rules? People, for various reasons, could try to ignore citing your paper and instead citing another paper which appeared after your paper. Now I had rewritten the page without mentioning about my paper, so my paper is no involved. ---- Tuyentruongoslo

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SELFCITE&redirect=no Please read the policy. It clearly says what you're doing is not allowed. You need to write it in a way that it is not just one paper/set of papers written by the author. I will report you to the administrators if you continue to do this.

Hi Tuyentruongoslo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read the policies

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26392/when-is-it-appropriate-to-add-references-to-own-papers-on-wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work

I will report you if you repeat this. Your paper and work, while they may have been peer-reviewed are not yet "Generally accepted". Some of them are just pre-prints, and the accepted stuff hasn't been cited by anybody (according to google-scholar). Removing the citations and writing it as publication available but not cited - makes it even worse. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement site for academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potaman (talk • contribs) 18:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A third voice

@Tuyentruongoslo: and @Potamon: Permit me to add my voice to your discussion, if I may. The relevant policy in this case is WP:SELFCITE. Wikipedia does not disallow authors from citing their own published work in order to add their knowledge to Wikipeida, but only reliable sources should be cited, and it should not be done in such a way as to promote oneself or one's works. In this case, I don't believe that self-promotion is an issue: the paper is open-access, so no one stands to gain monetarily from the links. I do believe, however, that Potamon's second point about the reliability of this source needs to be weighed. As Potamon has pointed out, the work being cited has just been published online and cannot be evaluated for quality. If the paper had been cited significantly, we might take that as a sign of its validity. On the other hand, if a third-party reader had read the paper and decided that this information should be added to Wikipedia, we could assume the good faith of that editor and accept the validity of the paper. But in this case, we have only the author's own assessment that his work is valid and should be added to Wikipedia, and I don't think that is sufficient.

Also, the material is incompletely written, relying on the reader to access the paper for a full explanation of the concepts (rather than just using the paper as as source to verify the presented material). Overall, I agree with Potamon's conclusions (although not necessarily their reasoning or methods) that this material should not be included in the article.

As a post-script to Potamon, nothing written at Stack Exchange is relevant to this discussion; Wikipedia sets its own policies and external discussions of those policies do not affect the workings of Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User WikiDan61: Thank you. So from what you wrote, clearly I don't violate Wikipedia's policy. Concerning your point about the paper is not written completely: I think I already described the algorithms in detail. For experimental results reported, I wrote the results, and the source codes online, if Potamon is in doubt, they can check them selves. So I don't think those parts are incomplete. I can expand the other parts, but I am afraid of Potamon trying to delete again.

User Potamon: As WikiDan61 wrote, I don't violate policies of Wikipedia, but I think you are, since you delete my posts unreasonable, with wrong justification. As I wrote, I don't know why you insist on this, and I wonder if you have any conflict of interests on this thing.

Potaman (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC) TuyenTruong - I have no conflict of interests in this thing. However, you clearly do have a non-monetary conflict. If you present only your results as representing the state of the art in an area- and it's not even remotely clear that it is the state of the art - it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If you wrote what you wrote in a general review article, citing only what you did - it would not clear the editor's desk.[reply]

Additionally - your paper is not even in the first page of results for Backtracking line search papers from 2020 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=backtracking+line+search&hl=en&as_sdt=0,38 Why should we assume that it is the last word.

User Potamon: You seem to be occupied too much by rankings/citations and so on. You can be so, but here is Wikipedia. Now, show me what policy of Wikipedia which dictates which paper belongs to Wikipedia and which is not.

Quoting WikiDan61 "Overall, I agree with Potamon's conclusions (although not necessarily their reasoning or methods) that this material should not be included in the article." I want the material in Wikipedia to be consistent with a certain standard. And if every academic starts appending his latest and greatest result irrespective of whether the result is generally accepted in the community- it would be a pretty useless resource. In this particular case - describing 2020 results that are not in widely accepted use when the article doesn't even describe the quadratic and cubic interpolation backtracking is irresponsible and can't be anything but an attempt at self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potaman (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Potaman: Well, I think then you have some conflict of interest. Anyway, I don't know about those things which you wrote (quadratic and cubic interpolation backtracking), that's why I did not write. If you are competent, then please write in, and give experimental results so readers can see. I don's object with you doing that. If you do so, then I thank you for the service. --- Tuyentruongoslo

I am just a working engineer who uses algorithms. and if you actually reviewed a publicly available generally used back-tracking implementation - for example ,

https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/SNES/SNESLINESEARCHBT.html or https://github.com/JuliaNLSolvers/LineSearches.jl/blob/master/src/backtracking.jl or https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/scipy/optimize/linesearch.py

You can see that the order of interpolation is important in backtracking line-search. Potaman (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)04:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Tuyentruongoslo (talk)

User Pontaman: I think you are confused here. When I contribute to Wikipedia, I don't have the responsibility to write about everything in the literature. (Except if Wikipedia requires so.) I don't know everything. I only and can write about what I know best, and which is clearly better than what is in existence. If you know and like whichever stuff, then you are free write about them on Wikipedia. Citing what I not write to delete my writing is obstructing my contribution.

Commentary in article text

Your recent edits to Backtracking line search have included commentary in the text regarding this sourcing dispute. We don't do that sort of thing at Wikipedia. As it stands, you've added a bunch of unsourced material, which cannot be allowed to remain.

The question of whether or not you should cite your own paper does not involve WP:COI issues, but rather, in this case reliable sourcing issues. You have published a paper, but this paper cannot be taken as "generally accepted knowledge" until it has had time to live in the world and be cited (or disproven) by others. Many papers get published and eventually proven to contain incorrect information; since this process takes time, and your paper was only published a few weeks ago, I'd say it is too soon to cite this paper as a reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Your continued attempts to add your material to Backtracking line search while the material is under dispute ignores Wikipedia's consensus building process and has now become disruptive. If you keep trying to add this material as unsourced, prior to resolving the question of its sourcing, you will likely find yourself blocked. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61 What I added was not from my paper. What do you mean by my material? Why do you delete?

Whether or not it was from your paper, it was unsourced. I understand that the bulk of the material in the article is not properly sourced with inline citations, and we can address that at some point, but adding a whole lot more (more than twice the amount of material originally in the aritlce) with no inline sources means that the material is not verifiable and is therefore subject to deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Backtracking line search, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical point. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]