User talk:Krzys ostrowski

Welcome!

Hello, Krzys ostrowski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Isopropyl 01:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual synchrony[edit]

Virtual synchrony has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this is more a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. Please review Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for the relevant policy. If you can expand the article to address these concerns, please do so, or explain your plans on the talk page.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-citations[edit]

Hello Krzys ostrowski, I noticed that all references in Live distributed object and Distributed data flow seem to be papers (co-)authored by you. I was wondering if you have read the WP:COI guideline, in particular, the section WP:COI#Examples, part "Citing oneself"? — Miym (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article describes a concept that was peer-reviewed, published, and has drawn attention. Including it in wikipedia serves as a way to put it all in one place and link it to other related topics. In what ways does this represent a conflict of interest? The editing policy states that editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest, and also that using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies, and finally that if an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. I do believe that each of these conditions applies to this article. The policy also states that excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. Are there any particular citations that you would describe as redundant or excessive?

Well, WP:COI says that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I think the articles in question might be an example of a potential COI: it is not clear whether you are more interested in promoting your own research or improving Wikipedia. (Please don't take this as an offence, I am not claiming that there is a COI; I am just worried that a reader may suspect that there is a COI.) In future, I think it would be much safer if you let other Wikipedia editors to write about your own research. And adding more third-party references to the articles in question might help. But don't worry, I'll stop complaining about this now. :) Just wanted to let you know. Apologies if I hurt your feelings by raising this issue, once again, no offence meant! — Miym (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, point taken. I'll try to sprinkle it with citations to related concepts and similar work when I have a chance. I would say this article benefits Wikipedia by exposing the potential reader to a connection between distributed and object-oriented computing. This connection is not strong in the mind of most developers; the consequence being that most distributed systems, related standards, and architectures are monolithic, rigid, and inflexible. In this sense, promoting this type of work benefits the larger community. Granted, this and related topics in Wikipedia will probably need to be somewhat reorganized.

Proposed deletion of Typed communication endpoint[edit]

The article Typed communication endpoint has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dead link to only reference. Looks like a neologism. Could not find any sources to establish notability. No assertion of notability. Insufficient context to confidently determine intent here.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]