User talk:Martin.monperrus

Why did you move Neural backpropagation
Per title, Neural backpropagation was not colliding with Backpropagation, and it's honestly pretty difficult to get the two confused if you know what either an ANN and/or neuroscience is. If it's ANN it's just called backprop, full stop (unless the basics have reeeeally changed, which they haven't much fundamentally). Arguably you could call it "Neuronal backprop" to try to distinguish it more, but who's getting it confused? There's nothing on the talk pages? The only other justifiable move would be "Backprop (biology)" if that's demonstrably now (or was in 2007) the common term in the field, because creating the new article way back in 2007 could have easily triggered something similar to citogenesis where neuroscientists decided on a distinguishing modifier based on something already published. If you think the move is justified, please further the conversation on the article talk page. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks @SamuelRiv for your message. Neural backpropagation was considered colliding with Backpropagationn because in AI, we also use "neural" very much. Martin.monperrus (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's neither on the talk page nor the article page of backpropagation. I have never heard the term "neural backpropagation", especially not in relation to AI/ANN, until it was used to specifically separate the two articles. Please revert your move, make a discussion thread (on either backprop or neural backprop, doesn't matter), and justify your move with appropriate sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @SamuelRiv, ack, moved back to "Neural backpropagation". Best regards, --Martin Martin.monperrus (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Self Citation
Hello, Martin.monperrus. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Scientific articles should prefer secondary sources to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

The editing community highly values expert contributors, so I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add request edit to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * User:MrOllie My primary purpose is to contribute to encyclopedic knowledge and improve Wikipedia. You are pseudonymously removing contributions which all fit under the official Wikipedia rule:
 * "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."
 * Would you please stop doing so? Martin.monperrus (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Excessive self-citation is plainly inappropriate - you have added yourself to nearly every article you have edited. One one article you appeared over 30 times. I will not stop correcting these problems, no. MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:MrOllie We, scholars, have the mission to advance knowledge. Appearing 30+ on an article means that one is world expert on the topic. How do you assess the encyclopedic quality of a contribution before removing it? Martin.monperrus (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Appearing 30+ times on an article in this case only means you added yourself 30+ times. What you have been doing is plainly against Wikipedia's policies and norms - please respect how this community does things - you will find that it differs in significant ways from what you have grown used to in academic publishing. As a 'world expert' you are no doubt familiar with a wide range of sources of diverse authorship - you should be citing those rather than yourself and/or your associates. MrOllie (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:MrOllie We are in the same community of Wikipedia editors, we all follow the same rules related to contributing knowledge with sources:
 * "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Martin.monperrus (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That a citation is reliable is necessary but not sufficient. We may be in the same community of editors, but only one of us is systematically adding themself. MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:MrOllie Thank you for this conversation, it is very interesting with respect to the dynamics of Wikipedia improvement / degradation, motivating contributors and the role of scholars in the community. Best regards. --Martin Monperrus, Professor, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Martin.monperrus (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, User:MrOllie has systematically redacted Wikipedia to remove all mentions to my scientific work, published in reputable peer-reviewed sources, regardless of the relevance of the work to the page and the encyclopedic quality of the edit. Some related pointers for the interested reader:
 * Reliable_sources states the sources that can be used to back-up edits: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Reliable_sources
 * WP:Relationships_with_academic_editors presents the challenges and solutions to reduce the gap between scientific and Wikipedia knowledge: "Wikipedia needs to stop disenchanting expert editors. Every expert editor who is turned away is another naysayer against Wikipedia and one less editor with expert knowledge in a subject."
 * Civility discusses the human communication caveats that happen on top on encyclopedic knowledge construction: "Faceless written words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not fully transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments"

.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Software humour" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_humour&redirect=no Software humour] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Karen O'Rourke


The article Karen O'Rourke has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "does not meet notability requirements. No third party sources + no exhibition history"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)