User talk:Ocayaro

Welcome!

Hello, Ocayaro, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Ocayaro, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Ocayaro

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Ocayaro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello, I'm Constant314. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Schottky barrier have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Inserting references to your own work is WP:CITESPAM and WP:COI. Constant314 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ocaya-Yakuphanoglu method moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ocaya-Yakuphanoglu method. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and You should not create this directly as you have a COI. You need to go through the AfC process.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message.

uUnfortunately, I do not agree with you, as the OYM is the most advanced method yet for the analysis of Schottky diodes yet. It is the first major contribution since 1986, after the Chung-Cheung method. This may seem like a COI, but in reality it is not. The historical record of the method’s development shows that it was not originally called the OYM method, but “a method” i.e. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.12324.pdf

But, based on the suggestion of an anonymous peer-reviewer during publication, it was changed to the new title. You cannot fault the creators for this.

The creators of the method are, indeed, experts in the field, and even a cursory perusal of the scientific literature (e.g Google Scholar, SCOPUS), will reveal that aspect. For instance, from Google Scholar:

1. Ocaya (h-index = 16) -> https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KIO0NVIAAAAJ&hl=en

2. Yakuphanoglu (h-index = 68) -> https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_s6D-fYAAAAJ&hl=en

The same Google Scholar shows that the OYM is gaining popularity and currently sits at 21 citations (you can check this on either of the above GS profiles).

It is not self-promotion and NOT a COI, but a genuine need to inform the community of peers in a powerful new method. I have provided ALL the necessary proof.

In short, kindly return the page to Wikipedia, because active experts in the field CAN also create Wikipedia pages.

Regards. Ocayaro (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I realize that is it disappointing to have a Wikipedia article converted back to a draft. This is not the same as having the article deleted, you have a chance to improve it.

It is (very) important to recognize that Wikipedia does have a type of peer review process. In many ways it is much harder to get a new article accepted than to publish a journal article, even harder than publishing in Science. A method such as this will need to have extensive coverage (e.g. a page or so) in reviews written by others, and be highly cited (100 or more). You will need to convince someone who probably has a PhD in a related area that this is a notable method. It is a bit like getting through the first stage of a Science paper, with the editor then sending it out for review. Please read carefully the guide on notability. I suspect that it is too early, please read WP:TOOSOON.

Very important, please don't just create the page yourself. Submit it using the creation process, which is equivalent to submitting for review. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Good day,

Thanks for your reply.

I still do not agree with you, and even less, that publishing in Nature/Science, is easier. Those endeavors are not. Before writing the page I did a search on Wikipedia for the prior methods of device analysis, e.g. Norde (1979), Norde-Bohlin (1985), Cheung-Cheung (1986), etc. There are NO mentions of these methods despite their obvious ages and antiquarian existences. The real question is WHY? One answer is that there aren’t “experts” around or interested enough (I wonder why) to write such pages. No one writes my authoritatively about a thing than the creator of the thing. If you take something back from this, let it at least be this latter fact.

What do I take away from this? Mainly that,

1. Wikipedia frowns on contributions of legitimate academic Professors of Physics,

2. I cannot, going forward, take Wikipedia seriously enough to market it, or recommend it a viable source of reference information and, therefore, not encourage it to students in my reach,

3. I might actually discourage my institutions from actively supporting Wikipedia,

4. Wikipedia is NOT progressive in disseminating the latest and most useful topics other than the obvious, and finally,

5. Post this communication into the public domain (YouTube, etc) as the public-interest matter that it is.

To avert, please let us have another qualified viewpoint from a third HUMAN party on this. It would be appreciated. It also seems to me that the Wikipedia “wikis” you pointed me too have Phoutdated/limited policies on matters such as this.

Regards,

Ocayaro - a.k.a. Prof. R.O. Ocaya (Ph.D - Semiconductor Device Physics) Ocayaro (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you do due diligence to see who is making these comments, and whether they know what they are talking about. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I made a most polite request, I would appreciate it being actioned. Otherwise, Wikipedia is directly responsible for pushing off experts from the platform. Thanks. Ocayaro (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted a request for comment for you to the Wikipedia Physics forum here where there are many scientists including quite a few highly-cited academics. You can always follow the links to user pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ldm1954 to see who is making comments. You can also go to the draft page and click the blue "Submit the draft for review" to submit the draft for consideration. What you should not do is create an article yourself. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ocayaro Threats are not likely to help your cause. I suggest that when you get frustrated, stop typing. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop typing? Then I suggest you heed your own advice. You misunderstand what constitutes a threat. I am simply pointing out that when something becomes irrelevant, it’s probably time to move away from it. Ocayaro (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT:

The Wikipedia editing process has been criticized for being toxic due to a variety of factors. One reason is the anonymity of editors, which can lead to uncivil behavior and disputes. Additionally, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that disagreements can arise over content, leading to conflict among editors. Wikipedia has made efforts to address these issues by implementing guidelines for behavior and dispute resolution processes. However, the open nature of the platform means that maintaining a positive editing environment is an ongoing challenge.

Me: now I see why. Ocayaro (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

QUORA: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Wikipedia-editing-process-unnecessarily-toxic?top_ans=32012386

Wikipedia is living proof that anarchy doesn't work in large scale. It is now completely captured by mobs of sentinels working, paid or voluntarily, for interest groups, shutting down, deleting and blocking every user that counters their narrative. It was badly set up from the start, naively believing in the power of consensus. This turned out to be the tyranny of whomever has time and resources to shut other people up. This could’ve been avoided by adopting github's forking model, in which each user controls his or her own pages, while allowing everyone to fork content from one another (somewhat like it works with academic research, and somewhat like quora, though the patrolling here is also relentless).

798 views

4y Ocayaro (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

A page about a method named after the author of the page certainly seems like self-promotion and thus according to my understanding of WP:COI, the page would need to be reviewed before creation.

I have my doubts that this page would pass review. It is very narrow, highly specialized topic, essentially previewing one paper. I don't think any improvements to the content would change the outcome because the topic is not "encyclopedic".

It would be wonderful to have more content on wikipedia about Schottky diodes. Our article on Current–voltage characteristic is very weak as is Schottky effect. With these strengthened, an article something like Models of Schottky diodes would make sense and a section on the method discussed in the draft might make sense in that context.

@Ocayaro I encourage you to think more broadly about impact via Wikipedia. Experts contribute to the science literature by making very detailed important advances, but they can contribute to science education in the opposite direction, by summarizing existing and historical work in broad areas in ways accessible to general readers. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What impact exactly, if just personal opinions hamper the dissemination of important new information? I suggest that you read the lead up to this conversation? Ocayaro (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Your problem is right there in what you just wrote. Wikipedia is not a medium for "dissemination of important new information." We are an encyclopedia. We publish things that are well-established, not new information. We do not publish original research. That's not what we are for. It's not what we do. Your method is likely too new and not well established enough yet for us to cover it. When it is discussed in textbooks, or at least review articles, it may be ready for consideration.

Besides that, the fact that you are the one pushing for its inclusion is a problem. As others have pointed out, we have policies on conflicts of interest. You cannot use Wikipedia to promote your own work. If your work was ready for inclusion, someone else would be writing about it. The fact that the only person who felt it was worth writing about this method is one of its creators is an indication that the topic does not yet merit inclusion.--Srleffler (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This topic has nothing to do with “Models of Schottky diodes” The Thermionic Emission theory is the established model. I have tried to edit other pages to incorporate the OYM approach but their creators removed such contributions. Therefore, it seems I am going around in circles and, quite frankly, it’s a waste of my valuable time. If you wish to maintain your approaches and remain in the dark ages of technology, then so be it. I won’t be a part of it. Ocayaro (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)