Talk:Heterogeneous random walk in one dimension

Discussion on the article and comments on recent edits
OFLOMENBOM (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have further clarified the article (16 June, 2011). This includes the introduction, the number of paragraphs in the article and their titles. I hope it is clearer now, and a person from any field can understand what are heterogeneous random walks in one dimension.
 * The references in this article are in a standard way of citations in a scientific article. There are 39 references in this article and this is considered a reasonable amount of citations in a scientific paper. 39 citations are a reasonable amount that a reader will convince himself that this is indeed a serious topic, and also any reader can see what others wrote about this topic.
 * This article defines all the quantities that are used; so it is a consistent article.
 * Indeed, I have worked on this subject and published 4 scientific papers in scientific journals around the world during the last several years. In this article, I cite many authors that worked on this problem and on related problems. This article does not have any conflict of interest; it simply introduces and presents results in heterogeneous random walks in 1D that were PUBLISHED in the past in the scientific literature.


 * Thus is Wikipedia, not "the scientific literature", and should be moving more towards Wikipedia standards: see MOS:MATHS for standards for heavily mathematical articles, and WP:CITE for citations. The 39 citations are very unbalanced: apparently there are 19 on the topic of "random walks" and another 20 on applications of random walks in various fields of science, but absolutely no citations (or none identifiable as such) on the topic of this article "Heterogeneous random walk in one dimension". The article needs to include a sensible amount of links to other Wikipedia articles and this is very much lacking. As for "conflict of interest", it is for others to decide whether a contributor here has given undue prominence to their own works, and this is made near impossible by the poor standard of given details of the works cited ... no titles, no on-line links (well one now), no doi's, etc., and by the overwhelming numbers of citations given to simple topics while there are (apparently) none to the subject under discussion. Melcombe (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)



OFLOMENBOM (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article in Wikipedia is written for the general public, where the scientific papers about this subject were indeed written in a scientific way.
 * I think that the citations are balanced: about 35% are for a mathematical treatment of random walks and 2/3 are about applications that use random walks in order of solving the observed activity.
 * The current topic of the article is a system in random walks; in every book in random walks, one can find a paragraph about heterogeneous random walks.
 * This article doesn't sell anything and does NOT promote something. Since Wikipedia is for the general public, I think that it is pretty clear that conflict of interest has nothing to do with this article. Clearly, any scientist can read the actual papers that were published several years ago, and so conflict of interest is not an issue also with the scientific community.
 * So then, you have read WP:COI, and think that you are not in violation of it? And you have missed the point of citations... it is so that any claims made can be verified and any statements can be checked. A citation (not necessarily an "original source") (or better more than one) should be provided for every block of theory being presented. And if "every book in random walks, one can find a paragraph about heterogeneous random walks" why not provide a citation to one of these, after all according to WP:LEAD, the article needs to say why the topic is important and should provide a citation for this opinion. Of the "2/3 are about applications that use random walks in order of solving the observed activity (sic)", how many of these are just ordinary random walks, and how many use a "Heterogeneous random walk in one dimension"? With the present arrangement of text it appears that none of them relate specifically to this topic. Melcombe (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OFLOMENBOM (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have continued improving this article in the last 48 hours. This includes presenting an example in the abstract for the heterogeneous random walker, and also while supplying ISBNs for several books in the references and in the new paragraph of “additional bibliography” and other links for papers that appears in the references.
 * I think that the references are OK. They are many different authors in the list, and these references deal with applications and with the mathematical treatment of heterogeneous random walks. I do NOT accept any critique on the references, any-more. If a person thinks that additional citations are needed, this individual should supply the references.
 * I do NOT accept the point that a when citing a book, one should supply a specific page. This is not a serious way of citing books, and this is not the way scientists citing books (in cases that are relevant with the current situation).
 * I have included many links for articles in Wikipedia in this article, and this is for making the article clear for any reader. If an individual thinks that additional links are needed, this individual can improve the article, and links it with these additional articles.
 * I do NOT sell or promote something and so I reject any claim that this article has a conflict of interest. My aim here is presenting a scientific topic that I worked on and is important for many scientists, and so the general public can also find this topic interesting. Thousands of scientists worked on the field of random walks during the last 100 years. The specific topic of heterogeneous random walks is an important distinction from simple random walks, since usually, the first example of a random walker is a simple drunk that move left/right each unit of time with equal probability. This simple example is just an example, where in reality, the random walks are much more complicated, and are thus heterogeneous in nature. So, this article is important for those that are interested in more than the "kindergarten" example, and want hearing about the reality rather than merely the "kindergarten" example. In the abstract of this article I have included the simplest example that reflects reality.


 * I'm with Melcombe on this completely. In particular: (a) Wikipedia is not scientific literature and at least the opening of the article needs to be accessible / understandable by senior high school children; if it gets deeper, there need to be links to the notation / vocabulary in use. (b) The fact that OFLOMENBOM admits that they have published in this field reveals a COI. (c) The references are absolutely not OK. Finally: (d) Aspects of an article are not for individual authors to NOT accept; Wikipedia is a consensus. I would like to stress that what is needed are not more references; what is needed are better references more appropriately used. I'd vote for deletion if the page were nominated in the current state. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (a) Firstly, I can NOT accept your critique. Namely, I reject your arguments, and think that if a person wants improving this article, this individual should suggest specific revisions, rather than using an arbitrary claim about revision. Again, the references are OK and the abstract was improved significantly in the last several days, since the critique from Melcombe arrived; still, if an individual knows about additional important (and "better") books and papers in this subject, this individual is free of including these in the article. This is the idea of Wikipedia, that individuals can improve articles. (b) I think that you should see what readers think about this article; it is the important test, and not what this or that "editor" thinks. (c) Indeed, I have cited several of my papers in this subject in the current article in Wikipedia, and this is part of a list of about 75 references (including links) that appear in the current article. You are wrong: this article doesn't violate COI. You are getting confused between an article that tries making money or promote an organization or an idea, with an article about a SCIENTIFIC SUBJECT that hundreds of scientists worked on and still work on. Moreover, I think that it is the interest of Wikipedia that people that know what are writing about will write articles rather than individuals that do not really know what they are writing about will write articles. In a scientific subject, it is the interest of Wikipedia that scientists will write about the subjects they deal with. I "admit" that I am a scientist in the fields of stochastic processes and mathematical chemistry and mathematical biophysics. (d) I think that "suggesting" deleting this article is childish, not serious, and harm the interest of the idea in the basis of Wikipedia and the interest of the readers of Wikipedia. Of course, I am aware that such a procedure exists in Wikipedia, and that a majority is required for such a procedure. Nevertheless, I reject this suggestion.

OFLOMENBOM (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Updating this article: END 2011
I looked on this article from the perspective of many months. Since I have written this article, the only contributions from others were tags and minor typos corrections. Please note: This article is accurate. A person that reads this article will win important information. I have included this day several explanations in the abstract, and removed all the excessive and unnecessary tags.

PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THE ARGUMENTATIVE TAGS.

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF CONTRIBUTING IN THIS SUBJECT, CONSULT WITH OTHERS.

OFLOMENBOM (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)