Jump to content

User talk:Eeberbach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:EvolAutWikiBEv2.pdf

A tag has been placed on File:EvolAutWikiBEv2.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CptViraj (📧) 10:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
-Liancetalk/contribs 17:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Eeberbach! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -Liancetalk/contribs 17:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Praxidicae was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Evolutionary automata, from its old location at User:Eeberbach/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Praxidicae (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Evolutionary automata has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Evolutionary automata. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Control copyright icon Hello Eeberbach, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Draft:Evolutionary automata have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evolutionary automata (September 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Draft:Evolutionary automata has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. If you are the copyright holder: we need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. Posting licenses on your draft itself is not the way to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content was not removed from your draft for "unknown reasons". You've already been told three times that we can't accept copyright material without the written permission of the copyright holders. Please don't re-add the copyright material to the draft until the OTRS team has had a chance to review the permission email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Note that we wrote Wikipedia copyright release statement in the draft, and, additionally we sent it separately by email. We did not violate any copyrights, because we are the authors, and keep the copyrights. How could we violate copyrights of our own text? It is obvious that our submission was based on our own text. For me, "unknown reasons" was removal of the random, but important parts of our draft, without that our draft did not make too much sense, i.e., crucial for the Wiki page contents have been persistently removed (and it looks that without any understanding). This could be done only by the person(s) who does not have any idea about technical contents of our submission. I say so because we with my coauthor published a few hundred of papers in reputable sources, and we are experienced writers, and our former submissions were always checked by professionals, i.e., the people who know the area, and we did not have so much problems like with this Wikipedia submission. Your comments very often sound strange and almost impossible to understand (note that we both have D.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees thus we are capable to understand very complicated text, but not your comments).

I include our Wikipedia copyright release statement from the draft:

We, Eugene Eberbach and Mark Burgin, declare that we own the copyright as authors of the material (positions[2-16] in references) on which our submission was based. Our Wiki submission obviously is not a research paper, but is based on series of our former publications[2-16], published in reputable sources, thus obviously there can be some repetitions. We decided that there is a time to make evolutionary automata, subject of our encyclopedic Wiki submission, to be accessible for general Wikipedia public. The license granted is dual: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and GNU Free Documentation license. Our release is irrevocable to the world into the public domain, and done in reliable and verifiable manner.

Thank you, Eugene Eberbach

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evolutionary automata (November 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
Appears to be original research.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
  • If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
  • If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
  • If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
  • If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Eeberbach (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can finally somebody knowledgeable (knowing evolutionary computation and computer science) review our submission? What was written by Theorodislong is complete nonsense. He wrote that our submission APPEARS to be original research that is totally false: our submission does not contain new original results, but is based on original research provided by references. Note that in our submission there are no theorems, lemmas, which are the main features of original research. Everything has been published However it is based on original research listed in references. We decided simply that there is time to learn something interesting by general public of Wikipedia. You process of submission and review is FRUSTRATING - every time is done by different person who do know anything about the area.

Managing a conflict of interest

Information icon Hello, Eeberbach. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Evolutionary automata, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evolutionary automata (February 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Evolutionary automata has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Evolutionary automata. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evolutionary automata (March 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evolutionary automata (March 13)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Article would still have to be wholly re-written to make it to mainspace and that's assuming it'd even pass notability guidelines. Page creator has been afforded seven opportunities to improve this, yet it still reads in nowhere near the appropriate, formal tone required by wikipedia and still feels chock full of original research and subjective analysis. In consideration of the aforementioned and because seven declines is enough, this article is rejected for the time being.
Sulfurboy (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We did not attack other editors - we believe that really the incompetent reviewers is what damage the community and deter users. This is a universal term "not notable" used by this specific editor many times, and I found many other authors who complained about that. You can apply that term to anything without providing supporting facts. Regarding the contents, we followed your advice, and removed the half of our own references and compressed contents related to our contributions to avoid claims of self-promotion. After these serious corrections, following exactly your advice, we got immediately another rejection based on false claims. Our contents are written in neutral encyclopedic formal way, and for sure they fulfill all requirements as other published similar Wikipedia pages on this subject (see again evolutionary algorithm, genetic algorithm, evolutionary programming, genetic programming, evolutionary computation pages). Our draft is not a research article page, but it is based on very substantial previous research referenced by many respectable authors: there are 15 other authors' references and 6 our own. Exactly, these 6 references may our contribution unique and notable in that area. This should be obvious for anybody. We decided that there is time that our "notable" and original research will be available for general community of Wikipedia. And what is happening? For one year we are blocked from publication of our page, based on frivolous, and not based on technical contents, facts. We wrote around 30 books, book chapters, reviewed journal and conference papers on this subject that were compressed to this Wikipedia draft submission in the context of other serious contributions by other authors.

See the response here [1] and you most certainly did attack an editor, you called User:Sulfurboy “the ignorant reviewer”. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying incompetent reviewers isn't helping your case. You can be blocked for this. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What if the reviewer is really ignorant and incompetent? Should we be silent about that, because we can be blocked? Should we pretend that everything is ok, because we can be silenced and excommunicated from Wikipedia? In reputable journals the editor-in-chief or associate editor is responsible for finding a qualified reviewer. Similar mechanisms do not exist in Wikipedia - reviewers are volunteers, and nobody checks their qualifications for the review. It cannot be the reviewer that can do reviews on any subject like has happened in our specific case (we checked the scope of underlying reviews in this specific case). We never met such universal person in our very long professional career, thus we can safely assume that such person does not exist. If we are wrong, then this would be the first such case in history of humanity. For sure, we would not review submissions on music or nuclear physics, because we are ignorant in those areas. We did not attack Sulfurboy, we simply stated that he is ignorant in that specific area, what is the truth and easy to prove. Eeberbach (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eeberbach Have you seen the response here [2]. Theroadislong (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it - I did not believe that is so bad with Wikipedia. Now, I understand why practically all universities warn against publications in Wikipedia - they warn that publishing in Wikipedia can decrease chances of the candidate to get promotion or tenure. They explain that Wikipedia contains unscientific unreviewed and unverified claims/publications, thus one can publish anything there, pending that your "editor" is in good mood, and will not reject submission under any pretext. Similar like postings in Facebook or Twitter. 

               I think you misunderstand the core purpose of Wikipedia. No article should require a review by anyone "more competent in computer science and mathematics". If the article does not provide sufficient context and explanation to a general reader without speciality technical knowledge, then the article simply isn't suited for this encyclopedia in that state. There is no academic essay-style content on Wikipedia, everything must be directly attributed to sources without conclusions, synthesis or bias. Fact-source(s), fact-source(s), etc.

If "no article should require a review by anyone", then what for they are reviewed by anonymous editors who staying anonymous can write whatever they are pleased? Our article DOES PROVIDE sufficient context and explanation to a general reader without special technical knowledge. We did not provide new research and everything is supported by verifiable sources. 

                   "Sulfurboy would reject Turing's submission too if he had a chance", but that would indeed likely be the correct decision by any of the reviewers.

Total nonsense - correct decision?? Do you know what you are writing at all? Turing = computers + artificial intelligence + machine learning. Without him Microsoft, Apple and Google would not exist, and this should be known by any general reader of Wikipedia (and editors for sure). OK, let's assume that you do not know anything about Alan Turing, but everybody heard about Albert Einstein (I hope). This means that any of your reviewers could reject work of Einstein too, because they did not understand it, thus it should not be published in Wikipedia. 

                   We do not accept content based on primary sources, original research, synthesis of sources or essay-like exploration of topics like one finds in academic writings.

Everything should be based on original and verified research. Otherwise garbage is published. I know that now there is a hostile environment for science, research and academia (e.g., to ignore opinion of scientists on climate warming or coronavirus, because some "general readers" do not believe in that), but I did know that it affected Wikipedia too. 


               Your extremely hostile tone suggests you have no desire to actually adapt your work to Wikipedia requirements, so I agree with the decline. Wikipedia is not the platform for this publication in this state.

To make 7 substantial rewritings of our submission attempting seriously to satisfy random editors who every time wrote another excuse why they reject our submission, and you dire to claim that we have no desire to actually adapt our work to Wikipedia requirements? We did all requested corrections and it looks like an infinite cycle process. Particularly nasty and hostile were comments by Sulfurboy ("not notable" keyword, which cannot be proved or disproved because anything can be labeled in this way, including work of Turing and Einstein - and Wikipedia editors always would be deemed to be correct in their opinion). He decided that he would reject definitely our submission, because too many corrections were made (not too few) - this demonstrated the total and unwarranted hostility toward our submission (we just have made substantial revisions asked by another editor, and we strongly believed that our page will be published finally this time).

What else can we do to get finally our page accepted? This is why we asked for a more objective and not hostile editor. Eeberbach (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been scathing in your opinions of Wikipedia reviewers, but have made no discernible effort to understand even the basics of creating a draft article, which is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia. Have you read WP:YFA for instance? (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong

Yes, we read WP:YFA, but we returned to it again. Thanks for pointing that. Our submission does not advertise our research, and it does not constitute attack on a person or organization either. It is neutral and objective. It does not constitute new research, and is based on well-known reliable sources. It does not present new original theories, opinions, or insights that were not published before by many reputable sources. The article is notable in the sense that it covers important topics of scalability and expressiveness of EC, not addressed by other Wikipedia pages. We expanded introduction section to address the notability and importance of topics covered by this article. That approach is well-known for specialists in the EC area, but we believe that it should be interesting and useful for general Wikipedia readers who have all necessary explanations and defined concepts included in this submission. We added also the links to several existing related Wikipedia pages Note that the authors of this submission have many years of research and rich publication record in the area of submission – they were in program committees of multiple EC conferences, organized special sessions in congresses on EC, were associate editors and organizers of Ubiquity Symposium on EC in ACM Ubiquity Magazine journal with publications by top EC specialists (e.g., David Fogel, Zbigniew Michalewicz, Xin Yao, Hans-Paul Schwefel, David Wolpert, Moshe Sipper), and published many articles in the area (books, book chapters, journal and conference papers). Thus for sure, the authors of this submission can be considered the experts in EC area. Eeberbach (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No account sharing

Stop icon
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Newslinger talk 08:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eugene Eberbach and Mark Burgin, Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared between more than one person. Please sign up for a new Wikipedia account so that each of you have separate accounts. Once you have completed this step, please respond with the name of the new account, and I will unblock this account. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that account was shared by two people - the reason of blocking. Editing and submission was done by me.

Eeberbach (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eeberbach (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is not true that account was shared by two people - the reason of blocking. Editing and submission was done by me. Eeberbach (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've gone out of your way, repeatedly, to indicate this account represents two people. You'll need to specifically address this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I may be being pedantic, but up above you clearly state "Our submission does not advertise our research". Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You referred to a "co-author" here as well. Does this co-author have access to your account? 331dot (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Eeberbach (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The co-author does not have an access to my account - you can easily verify that all editing and submissions were done physically by me only, and my co-author is a few thousand miles away. I used "we" because I used co-author's knowledge and sources in writing that submission and would be unfair to deny that. Eeberbach (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you for your explanation. I have unblocked this account. Please keep in mind that the Eeberbach account represents you as a person, and not you and Mark Burgin as a group. If Mark Burgin would like to directly participate in the discussions about the draft, he is welcome to create an account of his own. — Newslinger talk 22:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, Newslinger, and Yamla: - Looking at this from a CU perspective shows editing from only one device, on a single IP. SQLQuery me! 14:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, I do not oppose an unblock in this case. This may have been a problem with communication rather than a problem with account sharing. --Yamla (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Evolutionary automata has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Evolutionary automata. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. What else should be done to unblock the rejection of our draft and to accept or review our submission again? I appreciate your help. Eeberbach (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should approach the user who rejected your draft and ask for his view on that, but more secondary sources would help and a lot of re-writing for simplicity and clarity. Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This I do not think is good that one user/editor has an absolute power like president of king and decides whatever is pleased, but this I will not change. What does mean a lot of re-writing, and if so where and what specifically? I read the current draft with the pleasure - is self-consistent, complete, having a good structure, and containing a lot of explanations and references (at least not less than other pages on related subjects). However, I understand that a regular Wikipedia reader may have still some difficulties with technical terms (I tried to avoid formalities as much as possible, but without trivializing the important and technical subject). I cannot add the tutorials on the subject, because the Wikipedia article should be short and self-informing by itself, i.e., the user may/should look at other sources (Wikipedia or not) if interested in more details. Thanks for your help. Eeberbach (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop writing condescending messages with insults at others. Several other reviewers have reviewed and agreed with them. What exactly do you want to happen to show this? For multiple reviewers to add the same reject message? I have read the draft, looked at sources, replied at help desk request, and read your every subsequent message. You haven't even attempted to seriously fix the issues pointed out to you. Theroadislong has already taken so much time to reply and guide you, but you are either unwilling or unable to follow the guidance. The very first sentence of the draft still has stuff like "most compelling themes of modern science". If you don't understand such basic sourcing and original research issues, how can we even begin to address the smaller and subtler problems. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather your message is condescending and you try to insult me that it was decision of rejection by multiple reviewers, when it was a decision by a single editor - other editors declined and encouraged corrections. Please do not teach me in patronizing tone that I did not attempt to fix seriously the submission (from my 200 publications I never spent so much time on corrections like for this specific submission, thus for sure I know how to write and correct submissions). This was exactly after applying serious corrections for Theroadislong's comments, when my draft has been rejected, which does not make any sense. Only Theroadislong gave me some constructive comments, and you never did. The another exception is (anonymous) editor who added a small section and references to the draft, before even it has been published, thus probably, he/she thought differently about that submission value and importance. Insults or slogans are not constructive comments. It looks that you read only my first draft sentence, and you did not think that perhaps it is true and is based on serious and reputable sources referenced in submission (what can be more reputable in that area than Handbook of Evolutionary Computation which is encyclopedia of EC? The above sentence was also used in multiple Congresses on EC). It was not created by me. I can remove it, if it personally offends you for whatever reasons. Please note that Evolutionary Computation, together with Deep Neural Networks and Fuzzy Sets form Soft Computing, which is part of Artificial Intelligence, and AI is one of the most dynamic and modern parts of Computer Science. Note that Natural Evolution and Artificial One (i.e., Evolutionary Computation) belong really to the "most compelling themes of modern science", independently whether somebody likes it or not. This is the opinion of the top scientists and not my invention. Can you provide at least one constructive comment what should be changed in the submission, what is untrue or you do not understand? Please avoid generic slogans like notability or essay, but concentrate exactly on the smaller and subtler problems. For sure, the topic is notable and urgently needed for Wikipedia readers. Thank you. Eeberbach (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is any progress with unblocking rejection of the draft on Evolutionary automata? Who can do it technically? Only editor who rejected it, or also Wikipedia administrator or editor-in-chief? I did not have luck with my submission so far, besides you (i.e,, Theroadislong) I never received any constructive comments from other editors. As I suspected, Hellknowz, could not provide any technical hints, besides that he did not like the first sentence in the submission. Am I now in the deadlock situation? I am ready for corrections, but I cannot change everything or do unknown substantial changes to please one editor if I know that the next editor can change everything again (like it happened before). I know the value of the submission, but I am not Don Kichot to fight if I do not see any reasonable chances to succeed. Thanks for your help. Eeberbach (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AS per User:Hellknowz's comments above "The very first sentence of the draft still has stuff like "most compelling themes of modern science". If you don't understand such basic sourcing and original research issues, how can we even begin to address the smaller and subtler problems." You have made no attempt to edit the draft to make it conform to the Wikipedia guidelines, so it remains rejected, sorry.Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made several corrections mostly adding clarifications and links to existing Wikipedia pages for general Wikipedia readers. I changed also the begin of introduction (despite that I strongly believe that it was correct), because I realized how big is still the resistance (particularly in US) to the 100 year old and commonly recognized theory of evolution. What else should be modified? Thanks for your help. Eeberbach (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made several corrections. What else should be done? Is any progress with unblocking the rejection of the draft? Thank you, Eeberbach (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that the requiem has to be declared to our draft "Evolutionary automata", because of the total silence from the editors. I made multiple corrections trying to un-reject and publish finally this article. It is a pity that sometimes excellent submissions are rejected. Eeberbach (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of your draft

The lede section fails to establish clearly what the subject is about, it begins with an introduction/preamble which appears to be an unsourced point of view that isn't mentioned in the body of the article. (See Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts) and then concentrates on evolutionary computation. The sections on Evolutionary algorithms and Evolutionary computation theory are not really required as we already have articles on them and you have linked to them multiple times, we only link the first instance (See WP:MOS). The majority of the draft is not actually about evolutionary automata. I think if you could address these issues it might be clearer to reviewers whether the draft is actuallynotable, at the moment it is far from looking like an acceptable encyclopaedia article and if it was published it would surely be sent to WP:AFD. The concept of evolutionary automata was introduced by you and Mark Burgin, but you cannot use this as a source to establish notability of the subject. I sympathise with your frustration, which is borne of not understanding fully how Wikipedia works. Hope this helps. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] 


                   The lede section fails to establish clearly what the subject is about, it begins with an introduction/preamble which appears to be an unsourced point of view that isn't mentioned in the body of the article.

The subject of the submission is to present foundations and properties of EC in a more formal way by using evolutionary automata. The first sentence “Evolution by natural selection, which is one of the most compelling themes of modern science, brought forth genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation, applying mechanisms of evolution in nature to various problems solved by computers.”, is very elegant and was used in multiple sources, in particular, even in CFP in one of Congresses on EC. I added one of the sources (position [5] in references). 

                  The sections on Evolutionary algorithms and Evolutionary computation theory are not really required as we already have articles on them and you have linked to them multiple times, we only link the first instance (See WP:MOS).

No, they are required and essential for understanding next sections. Firstly, the Wikipedia definition of evolutionary algorithm is very vague and imprecise. I used much more precise definition based on Fogel and Michalewicz (posiitons 6,7,8.9] in references. Secondly, it does not exist Wikpedia page on theory/foundation of evolutionary computation, and other sources do not describe it well either - I tried to avoid to write that explicitly in the text to avoid subjectivity and self-promotion criticism. I added some toned information to introduction only. 

                                    The majority of the draft is not actually about evolutionary automata. I think if you could address these issues it might be clearer to reviewers whether the draft is actuallynotable, at the moment it is far from looking like an acceptable encyclopaedia article and if it was published it would surely be sent to WP:AFD.

I could not make both ways, i.e., to write exclusively on evolutionary automata only, and to avoid self-promotion criticism. Additionally, sections on evolutionary algorithm and theory of evolutionary computation are not repetitions, and are required for next sections as I explained above. Also the original draft submission had much more writing about evolutionary automata, but I compressed it to avoid again self-promotion criticism. 

                    The concept of evolutionary automata was introduced by you and Mark Burgin, but you cannot use this as a source to establish notability of the subject.

I do not use evolutionary automata as a source to establish notability of the subject. Evolutionary automata are only the tool to obtain new results on expressiveness and scalability of evolutionary computation, which is crucial and essential for EC, and was not covered by other Wikipedia submissions so far. To convince you that the topic is really appropriate and notable for Wikipedia standards, please note that a new section, called Example, and 4 new references, were added to the draft. It was not done by me, nor by my co-author (he does not have this account access, is a few thousand miles away, and does not use your markup Wikipedia editor). Because the additions were not done by us, and article is not published yet, thus such additions were, most likely, made by one of the Wikipedia editors, which proves that submission and topic is important and notable for Wikipedia. If it is already inspiring some authors/editors in the draft form, we can only imagine what would happen if it was published. By the way, that addition uses Wikipedia page on Von Neumann cellular automaton, which is much better formally defined than the page with definition of evolutionary algorithm; and it is close to the more formal definition of evolutionary algorithm and evolutionary automaton used in this submission.

Eeberbach (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not do promised editing of the draft on Evolutionary automata, because I could not edit the whole draft text and only separate sections, which is not sufficient (in particular, I cannot access introductory section)

Eeberbach (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... clearly you don't want any help with this draft, good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that I do not want any help, but I am blocked to do full editing of the whole text of the draft. My guess that this is the result of rejection by Sulfurboy, and next temporary blocking of my account claiming that it was shared (and it wasn't). If I make corrections for one editor, another one jumps in and claims new things (often without any justifications). I explained you why the sections on evolutionary algorithms and theory of EC are important for next sections, and they are not replication of existing Wikipedia pages (even cellular automaton has at least 2 Wikipedia pages), because the definition of evolutionary algorithm is different and more complete, and the page on theory of EC does not exist at all. If you say that removal of those 2 sections is necessary condition for draft publication, I will do that despite I do not agree with that at all. I agree with you that the process of Wikipedia publication might be very frustrating, because I never had such negative experience with my multiple publications before. How can I make corrections of the text if I am blocked from that?

Eeberbach (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are NOT blocked? Theroadislong (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia administrator blocking has been removed, however I can only edit Talk pages and I cannot edit the complete draft (Sandbox), thus I cannot introduce new changes to it.

Eeberbach (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent explanatory comments in the draft are totally inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, I suggest you ask for help at this project page as your draft is VERY far removed from anything remotely acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for help - no results. You claimed that two sections (on evolutionary algorithms and on evolutionary computation theory) were redundant because they were covered in Wikipedia. When I showed that both sections are not redundant because they were not covered in Wikipedia, you claim that the draft is totally inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. You cannot have it both ways: be redundant and not be redundant but inappropriate. If the draft was before very close to the acceptation, how it miraculously became "VERY far from anything remotely acceptable"? TOTALLY illogical. This was the reason why I asked that the reviews of articles in Wikipedia should be done by specialists and not by editors, who do not know anything about the area of submission, and who even do not care to explain and justify precisely their verdicts labeled by random tags (e.g., not notable, essay-like, etc.). In such a way you can reject or accept anything, which for sure, is not good for Wikipedia and its readers. In other words, the qualifications of editors should be verified very precisely before they are allowed to make life and death verdicts for submissions. Eeberbach (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.143.72.254 (talk)

I said above that "your explanatory comments in the draft are totally inappropriate" NOT that the draft was. As I have said before, WP:NOTGETTINGIT applies here, you have been given lots of advice but you are still insisting you are correct "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement" Another editor has outright rejected your draft, it's time to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like your constructive and MORE PRECISE criticism much more than using slogans like notability and essay labels that can be attributed to anything - thank you. I introduced some changes in the draft using your suggestions - hopefully, this is what you expected. Please provide PRECISE suggestions what else has to be modified and reformulated. To be politically correct, I will refrain what I think about the editor rejecting outright the draft. Thanks for your help and patience. Eeberbach (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Evolutionary automata

Hello, Eeberbach. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Evolutionary automata".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Evolutionary automata

Hello, Eeberbach. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Evolutionary automata".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 13:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eeberbach&oldid=1028357541"