User talk:Keburjor

Your work
Hi

Having watched you slideshow and read some of your work I am impressed :¬) Bear in mind that I am more of a layman than knowledgeable in the field please lol

How would the effect on the funtions change if the numbers were quaternary rather than binary 4234142322314 (or 3123031211203 if you prefer starting with 0 lol) for example ?

The reason I ask is ABCD (well ACGT) in genetics. It is the way nature has decided to use for gene splicing and I suppose this must have an effect on the final outcome of mutation.

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a great question; but this talk page might not be the right place to have a discussion about it. Please send me an email, or post your question to generativefixation@googlegroups.com. Keki Burjorjee (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can always use the Wikilink to email me :¬) Go to my uaer page, click on the user tab abd its halfway down the options list Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Genetic algorithms
This is a warning about your edits/reverts to Genetic algorithms. You have a conflict of interest, you asked for and received consideration for your RfA, and then you went ahead and inserted your text anyway. There is a three revert rule, WP:3RR. As a side note, you should not be promoting your own work on Wikipedia because you are too close to your own work to offer the appropriate perspective. Glrx (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Glrx, I need to correct another one of your misconceptions. I issued a request for comment, not a request for arbitration (only a select few have the authority to respond to the latter; you aren't one of them). This means that I asked for other editors to, as you put it elsewhere, "weigh in" on a dispute between Oli Filth and me, a dispute that OF seems to have abandoned. Your comments as an RFC editor are not binding upon either OF or me. So either accept your role as a disputant in this dispute, and the the obligations that accompany that role, or stop reverting the proposed edit.


 * Regarding your side note: On what grounds do you find me to be "too close" to my own work to offer the "appropriate perspective"? Questioning my objectivity without substantiating your claim is rather irresponsible. Keki Burjorjee (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did a request for comment; I got the term wrong. Having commented on the issue, it seems appropriate to follow through. You, however, seem inclined to ignore the RfC and do what you want to do. Even if I were a disputant, I don't see that I've shirked my obligations. I've discussed the issue on the talk page.


 * You're too close because it is your own work. There's a COI problem. I disagree with you, and you challenge my credentials (or speculate about them); you don't challenge the credentials of those who agree with you. Your contributions on WP have the appearance of promoting your work. The simple way out -- and what I ask for -- is to counter the notion of WP:UNDUE. You haven't done that. Where have other researchers even adopted the name GFH?


 * Where is my COI? That I disagree with including the reference now does not imply a COI. Neither did OF's opposition imply a COI. The screwy part is if there were secondary sources or prominent individuals who were opposing the GFH, then WP:UNDUE would not be an issue.


 * Glrx (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Glrx, I challenged your credentials because if you don't know anything about genetic algorithms, then how are you able to determine that the edit gives the generative fixation hypothesis---a verifiable theory---undue weight? Weight is not determined by citations alone. In the present case, the generative fixation hypothesis has weight because it is the only full-fledged hypothesis that professes to explain the adaptive capacity of genetic algorithms with uniform crossover---an anomaly that has seen no plausible explanations in over twenty years.


 * I have not questioned the credentials of Parent4556 and Chaosdruid because they are not adjudicating on the weight that should be given to the GFH. Their main point is that if one isn't qualified to adjudicate on weight, then, in the interest of not doing readers harm, one should let the edit stand. Unfortuntately, you don't seem to be very worried about the interests of Wikipedia's readers.


 * I've never said that you have a COI. My main point is that when you insist on adjudicating on the weight due to a verifiable theory presented from a NPOV without any knowledge of the field in question, you aren't exactly keeping the best interests of Wikipedia's readers (especially its seekers) in mind. If there is a verifiable hypothesis that explains an anomaly that has been outstanding for over twenty years, why would it be a bad idea for Wikipedia's readers to learn about it? Your position that the theory should by now have been "adopted" by "prominent" researchers demonstrates an extremely rosy view about the pace at which science progresses in response to revolutionary theories that upend more established ones. Your glib comment above about the "screwy part" is more evidence of a cavalier attitude towards Wikipedia's readers. There is a difference between notability and weight. You are conflating the two, with little consideration for the consequences.


 * Also, you are shirking your obligations. Going weeks without responding to questions on the article talk page, but reverting edits within hours is bad form. When you revert, you ask "where is the consensus", knowing full well that you are the only active participant blocking a consensus. Keki Burjorjee (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-29/Genetic algorithms
I have offered to mediate this. Please indicate your acceptance or lack on the mediation page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

hi
I understand your frustrations at all that has happened. I would be dissapointed if you decided to not contribute to wikipedia.

I appreciate your IEEE links but as we are not members of IEEE we cannot read it, download the PDF or see anything otherr than an abstract which does not show context (the google search link) and one which does not show any mention (the IEEE page).

Lets get some things in perspective though.

First of all my comment about near personal attack - as a comment has no mind, and cannot read your comments, can you see why "simple-minded" could lead editors to assume that you were directing it at the writer rather than the content ? I feel that the whole issue started as a COI issue for glrx and his original comments here in August were pretty aggressive and unecessarily so, possibly due to his inezxperience. Once they were made it seems he decided to continue defending his actions, even after the COI was shown to be not an issue. and this has led to continued conflict.

Your editing has been pretty much what we call single issue, that is to say one one article or topic, and with 800+ edits solely on the GA article, BBH & GFH and the issues arising it is perhaps easy to see why editors would say you are a single issue editor. In itself that is not really a problem and I would encourage you to try your hand at other articles you have an interest in - I cannot believe that someone with your level of education would not be interested in other topics even if they are linked to algorithms or AI :-) There are projects you could join and help edit perhaps lending a hand to AI or robotics or even just copyediting articles about your local area

I hope that your GFH work receives the recognition it deserves and that you, or we, can find secondary refs to allow its inclusion. I personally feel you have adequately shown respect for the COI rules and that you came at this with a good attitude. I hope you can widen your Wikiediting scope and that this experience does not scare you away with the feeling that your work and intentions are in doubt.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)