User talk:Apovolot

I replied on my talk page. linas (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1"

A page you created, Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is very short and provides little or no context.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. RazorICE 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 2"

A page you created, Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 2, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is very short and provides little or no context.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. RazorICE 13:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 3"

A page you created, Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 3, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is very short and provides little or no context.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

Please don't create identical copies of the same text. `'Míkka>t 16:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC) To [mikkalai|Míkka] Your deletion of problem_2 and problem_3 is not justified ! Actuall I see now that you have deleted all 3 of them ... Those are three DIFFERENT problems - each is unique ! And yes each of those three relates to both Brocard's and Dabrowski ! Apovolot (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Dabrowski

The article you created refers to "Dabrowski (1996)", but doesn't say what journal this was in, let alone a title of the paper. Having a clear reference to a published source might help your article's chances of surviving. So would following the usual conventions for formatting Wikipedia articles. It's hard for anyone to help with that as long as the article's content is not clear. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I did not describe your reference to OEIS and Neil Sloane as nonsense - that was another editor. Look at the signature at the end of the comment. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry then ! I am new on this so please accept my apologies ! I guess I let my angry feeling go into wrong direction ... Rather than deleting those entries - would it make instead sense to investigate it further with the goal to improve the content and its appearance ? Regards Apovolot (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Apology accepted, no problem. I will try to give more advice later today. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How not to write a Wikipedia article

Your article now reads as follows:

Posted in sci.math.research, NUMTHRY and primepuzzles.net. Referenced in OEIS's A145355. http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A145355 OEIS is managed/edited by renowned scientist - Neil Sloane, therefore OEIS reference is a Reliable Source ! So far proven only for the case, when k=2. Complements Brocard's conjecture.

Variants of the problem:

Dabrowski (1996) has shown that it would follow from the abc conjecture that

  n! + A = k2

has only finitely many solutions, for any given integer A. The problem is communicated to Richard Guy for inclusion into next edition of his "Unsolved Problems" book.

Reading this, it is anything but clear what mathematical problem is being written about. You begin by sayings it's been posted to certain forums and is referenced in OEIS. You need to start by saying something like this:

Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1 is a mathematical problems that asks[etc. etc.].

When you haven't even told the reader what the math problem is, you're getting into exclaiming about how reliable OEIS is. Such exclamations are out of place; one should simply link to OEIS where it is mentioned.

As the article stands, I can't tell what the math problem is. You need to start the article by explaining that. And your reference to Dabrowski (1996) has to be made complete; I can't go to the library and look it up without more information than that.

Contrary to what your talk page says, I am not one of those who proposed deletion, although I could recommend deletion if it becomes clear that none of the difficulties can be addressed. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for advise - I wish I could try to fix my articles according your comments but it appears all 3 articles are permanently deleted by now. Apovolot (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not. Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1 is still there and still being discussed on WP:AfD. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Notability" and "Original Research"

I see that your article has been rewritten, but I think it still has problems with two of Wikipedia's policies: No Original Research and Notability, and you need to read those two guidelines.

In a way, the two questions are linked. The notability question is: "is this subject of enough general interest for an encyclopedia article?" and the one of the principal tests is, "have other people, independent of the subject or the author, thought it important and interesting enough to write about it?" In the case of no original research the question is, "can this be cited from prior publication in an independent reliable source", which implies a degree of independent editorial assessment - Wikipedia deliberately chooses not to be in the business of taking editorial responsibility for first publication of new work.

From the article it seems that your conjectures have been published in sci.math.research, NUMTHRY, primepuzzles.net and OEIS, but if that just means that you have posted them there, it wouldn't count. You need to show that somebody else has considered it, given it editorial acceptance, written about it. That is the issue which is being discussed at the AfD debate and WikiProject Mathematics.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear John,

I have plenty of email responses similar to the one I list below as an example re each of my 3 conjectures.

Regards, Alexander R. Povolotsky

---

Forwarded message ----------

(Email content and email addresses redacted due to privacy concerns.) silverneko (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apovolot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably the deletion discussion page is the place to bring up something like this. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The question for Wikipedia is not, "do some mathematicians find it interesting personally", but "have other people found it interesting enough to discuss in a peer-reviewed journal or similar reliable publication". By the way, you posted a comment to my user page so I have transferred it to my talk page. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note: I am not involved in the AfD debate, but everywhere I find them I am redacting the e-mail content and e-mail addresses posted by Apovolot due to privacy concerns. Apovolot, I am sure you acted with all good faith. Please be advised, however, that posting of e-mail addresses puts one at risk of having those email addresses harvested by a spambot. Also, I have heard that posting an email written by someone else is possibly a copyright violation. Lastly, I suspect the email and email address were posted by Apovolot without permission. At any rate, I deleted the email and addresses to protect the privacy of the sender. Apovolot and Richard Pinch also have this email on their talk pages so I will delete there as well. I will post on the Admin's Noticeboard in case they feel it is appropriate to oversight or whatever. I am a new user but I was advised that this is the appropriate action at the Help Desk. I hope I have done the correct thing here and I welcome comment/guidance. Best regards, silverneko (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Post comments to user talk pages

Special:Contributions/Apovolot shows some edits to user pages which start with "User:". They should have been on user talk pages which start with "User talk:" and can be reached from the user page by clicking "discussion". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of problem #1

I saw that your problem was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1. The closing admin (talk page: User talk:Stifle) wrote that he'd be happy to provide the content of the deleted article for you. If you'd like to make a version of the page in your userspace (where you could improve it then possibly later add it to the main Wikipedia article namespace) you could so that. Michael Hardy suggested at AfD that the article may be fine if the problem is included in Guy's book. For the page, I'd suggest something like User:Apovolot/Problem 1.

I happened to read about the Brocard-Ramanujan Diophantine equation $n!+1=m^{2}$ in a thesis and was reminded of your conjecture.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Charles,

Thanks for your kind advise ! By the way, you might be interested to read the info below.

Regards, Alex

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Stodolsky 
Date: Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: Online Scientific Publications
To: apovolot@

The criteria for any document to be considered a scientific publication is peer review. This criterion is met by the OEIS,
however, without publication also in an archivable format, it might not be regarded as such by many and there is the risk
that the database would go off-line making it impossible to verify a contribution.
Those contributions appearing in the books, however, would escape these considerations.
dss
On 19 Oct 2008, at 05:03, Alexander R. Povolotsky wrote:
> Dear Doctor Stodolsky,
> What is the criteria for the Information posted online be considered as official
> scientific publication ?
> For example please consider
> OEIS (The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences) posted at
> www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences ...
David Stodolsky, PhD                   Institute for Social Informatics
Tornskadestien 2, st. th., DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark

Apovolot (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the AfD, I don't think that appearing on Sloane's list is enough to establish notability. I wouldn't worry about the database going off-line, though; I believe that it is amply backed-up and trust that the editorial board has preparations in the event of any usual event.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Graeme McRae Replies

I replied to your question on my talk page.—GraemeMcRae^talk 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Dear Wikipedians,

It appears to me that the full scope of Wikipedia's Review process for Science related articles only arises "by force" when the article is slated for deletion (is nomination for deletion constitutes more or less "by chance" random event ? - please correct/clarify my guess on the "randomness" of that deletion nomination process ...). Further, it appears that this Wikipedia's Review (which seems to be only arises in full scale during the argument for deletion ) is conducted in overly-democratic fashion where every "editor", irregardless of his qualifications in the area of the discussion, is allowed to have a voice.

Of course I understand that the "consensus" requirement is built-in into this process to alleviate possible "ignorance" of the majority "nay say-ers" ... but since in such review there is no mandatory participation of the person with sufficient "expert" credentials, thus (in my humble view) the "consensus" requirement is not fully working as designed (to preclude from the ignorant judgment outcome) and the review "quality" is less than to be desired (also note that such review process doesn't conform with the scientific publication review requirements due to lack of appropriate qualifications among the reviewing peers ...).

Would it be beneficial (for the Science articles only) to introduce the list of "participating" "qualified" reviewers, of which at least one should be involved into each review ?

Also it appears that there are possibly 3 areas of qualifying the Wikipedia's Science related article (each qualification area would require its own list): a) Scientific content b) Editorial (style, format. etc.) appearance c) Legal conformance

Could we start the discussion on that ?

Thanks, Best Regards, Alexander R. Povolotsky Apovolot (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that in my proposal I am only suggesting to use expert editors for science related articles. I could retreat further and suggest that such review (by expert editors) could be used just as an an optional feature (again for science related articles) either requested by the author of the article (for the purpose nomination of the article to become attested as attaining the "scientific publication" quality ) or by admin/editors during the deletion discussion, when they feel that the participation of experts is needed to decide on the issue. Apovolot (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

On another hand (optionally) Wikipedia may consider to extend its charter (from being just an encyclopedia) and create/keep the section for the "original scientific research" postings - being clear marked as experimental and NOT fully reliable info ... That would allow Wikipedia to perform / stand as a "catalyst for change and innovation". Apovolot (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you got off on the wrong foot. There are general guidelines as to content and style that are generally understood and are generally followed (although there are sometimes mistakes, errors). You need to get more familiar with the customs, the procedures, and the style that is commonly employed at WP, before trying to get into deep discussions about process. linas (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Linas - your reply appears (to me) to be too formal ... I did a small research before posting ... I am not talking re general Wikipedia customs, the procedures, and the style which guide Wikipedia articles in general - I am only talking about science related articles and pondering whether those could/should achieve the quality of "scientific publication". I didn't find anything on that - sorry. Apovolot (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Expert editors, a proposal that was rejected, and Citizendium. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You could look at GA review and FA review. Also the various wiki-projects in the science field. IN terms of "scientific publication" the answer is yes and no. WP compares well in many respects with a lot of text books, but is not the same as, for example, a research paper. Rich Farmbrough, 01:20 26 October 2008 (UTC).

The basis of wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. GA and FA articles are in no way guaranteed to be up to par to what experts in the field consider what is actually reality. For example, the first sentence of Natural Selection is not about natural selection, but about Evolution by means of natural selection. But heck, there are a bunch of editors who smack around with citations, satisfying the verifiability, but at the same time promoting the wrong idea. So, I, as an expert editor, gave up. Wikipedia is inherently anti-expert. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was, I think, Winston Churchill who said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". You could say the same about Wikipedia's policy of "verifiability, not truth". The idea of "expert editors" or "expert reviewers" sounds plausible at first, but sooner or later it would degenerate into "experts" endlessly squabbling over content. "Experts" are just as obsessive, quarrelsome, petty-minded, intransigent and incoherent as the next person - and probably more so when they feel their intellectual alpha status is being challenged. Wikipedia needs an objective benchmark to resolve content disputes, and "verifiability, not truth" is a pragmatic and successful approach. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 10:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes - I should have included "sarcastic" in my list of qualities. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would agree with Gandalf61 viewpoint. Scientific articles are subject to review like any other article, but it can't be left to experts to decide what articles meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, since they are indistinguishable from the rest of us. The process of review is not as random as you might think: since every article can be reviewed at any time by anyone, statistically speaking every article will be peer reviewed at some point. If it does not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then part or all or the article can be challenge by anyone - which seems quite democratic to me. I like the Churchill quote, but even though democracy can be chaotic, it does enable issues to be debated and resolved by the people who are participating in building Wikipeida. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, most articles are peer-reviewed, but most of the time, experts just let it be, because they recognize that fighting the windmills of democratic ignorance is not something you can win. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gavin.collins and Gandalf61- thank you kindly for the expressed opinion (which is appreciated) - but why do you want to have the review process be left to chances and statistical probability (no matter how high this probability could be) ? Why do you suggest that the experts are indistinguishable from the rest of us ? In my view the experts should be willing (at least temporarily during the review) verifiably reveal their true identity and credentials, which should be at least at the PhD level in the corresponding area of science (or higher). I am not myself in high admiration of those "obsessive, quarrelsome, petty-minded, intransigent and incoherent" high priests of science but do believe that using them for TRUE (in its scientific meaning) peer (expert) review is still better than existent highly anarchic form of review. Democracy is OK, anarchy and the rule of ignorance is not. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite the name, Peer Review on Wikipedia is not any sort of expert review, such as is done for publication in professional journals. Peer review here is to improve articles - do they make sense, do they conform to the Manual of Style, how can they be improved to meet the criteria at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, and in some cases do they properly present the topic? The problem at Peer review here is how to get enough reviewers to do even that - for the past 8 months I have done several hundred PRs and have just cut back from burnout.

While I like the idea of expert review on Wikipedia in theory, the practical details would be daunting if not impossible. How would the experts be found and recruited? How would their identities and expertise be verified? For example, if I signed myself up as Stephen Hawking, how would that identity be disproven or verified (I'm not him, by the way). My experience is that people who know about topics (have expertise) tend to raise these issues at WP:FAC, not peer review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I do not claim to be an expert in anything here on Wikipedia. I often wrote in peer reviews things like "I am not someone who normally writes about X, but ...". Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ruhrfisch - I am not denying that the practical details are to be addressed but I am optimistic re expert review feasibility and therefore do believe this should be attempted at least as an optional (by the special request) feature. In my view the experts should be willing (at least temporarily during the review) verifiably reveal their true identity and credentials, which should be at least at the PhD level in the corresponding area of science (or higher). Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Apovolot. I think that the questions concerning verifying credentials are overblown. Most researchers have an easily accessible webpage or something. The criteria could simply be at least one academic publication and institutional affiliation.

The larger issue with what your propose is that it'd be extremely difficult to find anyone willing to throw the weight of their credentials behind an article. It sounds so time-consuming that I would never agree to endorse a mathematics article, but I will happily contribute to articles in areas with which I am familiar.

There is an honest problem with certain science articles. The answer to these problems is rigorous application of the standard wikipedia policies (e.g. NPOV). Our only mandate as wikipedia editors is to simply quote published materials without bias, interpretation, or synthesis. If some of us happen to be experts, then maybe we can do this more efficiently (or perhaps better with respect to exposition). I would say, however, than a good number of editors do this remarkably well despite their lack of formal qualifications. Editing wikipedia articles would be a fantastic exercise for undergraduates. From an educational point of view, I would love it for my students to come here and contribute. I also think they'd do a damn good job.

Rapid response to disruptive editors and dogmatic application of the usual policies is entirely sufficient. I also think that the various subject projects (e.g.Mathematics Project) are very helpful and should be bolstered in some way.

In my experience, things have a tendency to go terribly wrong when someone starts claiming that their expertise is worth more than a citation. Typically, these cases involve some sub-par researcher or practitioner who lacks an institutional affiliation. I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion.

Maybe if we were all sensible, then we would think "Editor x is an expert in this area, I ought to ask him what he thinks of the article." Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something). Put such a thing in your userspace or something. On the other hand, if we're following the guidelines exactly, then experts are really only useful to help improve exposition. No article should be so specialized that verification requires an active researcher. Also, we would have some clear problems if the list had any formal meaning. shotwell (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to go on one side or the other but I have had experience with this situation in the past (if you are reading this, wait until the end because it seems at the beginning that I am taking sides). First of all I would like to point out that:

a) It is very likely that someone may not have any qualifications but still be an expert in his field. Being an expert in your field, and having qualifications are two different things. You could take Gauss for instance; he was quite intelligent in his earlier years but would not have had any credentials then. Therefore, it is quite likely that there are some very knowledgeable people participating in science discussions (or maths) who do not have any qualifications as such.

What does it mean to have a PhD? If you hear that someone has a PhD in some field you would probably instantly think that he/she is intelligent (which is true). But it is possible for someone to know a field at the PhD level and be able to make new discoveries without having any qualifications. You are assuming that everyone who is a serious editor of Wikipedia has a PhD which (as far as I know) is not the case. As I mentioned earlier, age is a factor to take into account.

Yet another point: which 'expert' would 'waste' their time editing Wikipedia. There are some people out there who like to share their knowledge but currently, in my experience, quite a good deal of people don't think of Wikipedia that highly. In fact, some people (especially experts) get the opinion that Wikipedia is 'bad' because anyone can edit (we both know that this is not the case though). So for know, you probably have to work with the current Wikipedians and I am quite certain that most of them will be knowledgeable (even if they have not won a noble prize!).

b) However, I agree with you that experts should participate in discussions but then there is the 'identity problem'. I claim to be a 'topology expert' but I may not be. I may be a very bad student in topology who thought the name is suitable. If people judged me from my username, it would have very bad consequences on Wikipedia. You can't really say that someone is an expert unless you look at their edits. I admit to have made some mistakes (mathematical) in the past but I should not be afraid to edit Wikipedia. My point is that you can't judge people by little things on Wikipedia and nor can you judge them by their username. Unless you see what they write on talk pages and judge their ability by their edits on a whole, there should be no rule against them participating in peer reviews.

I have seen many mathematics peer reviews in the past and very often, the article is rejected to become a feature article because 'it is not explained well enough'. Many experts may find that the article is well-expalined if not 'over explained' but then Wikpedia is for anyone. If someone wants to learn a subject, he/she should readily be able to understand a certain concept in Wikipedia (knowing the required prerequisites of course). So my point is even if a peer review is rejected, there may be good reason for it (even if it does not seem so at first glance).

I partially agree with you with regards to references. References are always important, whether it is in a publication or to verify a claim made by a Wikipedian. Even if someone is an expert in his field, he quite often would have some misconceptions. Suppose I can put it this way: I claim that a regular Lindelof space is not necessarily normal (a misconception that Urysohn had!) but it is already well known that this is not the case in the mathematical community. If I go and put this on Wikipedia and claim to be an expert, I am spreading misconceptions over a larger community. References to published material are always good because they have been judged by a wider community.

It would be good to include experts in discussions and perhaps Wikipedians should notify experts when a peer review takes place. But then no-one really knows how many experts are actually there on Wikipedia in a particular field. In fact, I learn about a new mathematician in Wikpedia every day! But then the same problem arises: how can you tell whether someone is really an expert. When I find out about a new Wikipedian, I do not immediately judge their ability depending on whether they are annonymous or not.

My point is that later on, more people will be involved in Wikipedia and Wikipedia will expand. There are several math articles that really deserve notability but currently do not have much content; for instance topological group. I have many times had disputes with people regarding the correctness of content in a math article; sometimes I am right and sometimes I am wrong. This is probably the same with experts, and really, you can't always treat an expert's word as 'God'. Perhaps the best thing to do is: in the presence of a peer review which seems to be going 'out of hand' notify someone who is in the field (not necessarily having a PhD) and check his opinion. But even if he seems against many of the opinions presented in the peer review, you probably should not completely accept his word. I think in general most of the participants in the peer review would be talking some sense. It is unlikely that all of them are incorrect.

Hopefully, as more experts come into Wikipedia, there will be less disputes but disputes are a part of editing and they will probably always be there.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Topology Expert also posted in "What about this" section of this talk page (see below) the following:

Dear Apovolot,

I suggest the following criteria for someone to be an expert editor:

1. They should have edited at least 100 distinct pages in their field

2. They should have made at least 500 edits in their field

3. They should have participated in many peer reviews (how many?)

4. They should have edited pages which are considered at the 'centre' of their field. For instance, in mathematics, someone would be considered an 'expert' editor if he has contributed significantly to pages such as: Lie group, Topological group, Group (mathematics), Fibre bundle etc... (concepts which are crucial to mathematics).

5. They should have also edited at least 50 concepts which are quite specialized in a field. For instance Moore space (in topology), Essential range (in measure theory), Projective space (not so specialized) (in projective geometry), Banach space (in functional analysis), Cohomology (algebraic topology) etc...

6. They also should have collaborated with a good deal of other Wikipedians

Checking whether they have a PhD is not of much use as I mentioned earlier (and is not a fair criterion to check whether they are really an expert). Please tell me what you think.

---

I agree with above proposal but I still feel that additionally expert reviewers should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science (everything mentioned above relates to amateur Wikipedia activity ... ).

I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ...

But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by professional scientists.

Those professional scientists should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity.

BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing".

Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally.

There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation.

Apovolot (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole thread above, but just my 2c: while I think we need as good reviewers (for GA, PR and FA) as we can, setting up a formal "expert" label is difficult. Also, it is not really needed, in my experience. The "expertise" of editors is best measured in their edits (which gives a fairly good way to judge people's abilities), both for practical reasons and for the reasons that people may well be "experts" in their fields but are not (yet) expert writers on WP. The main problem I see for all these review processes is the lack of reviewers at all (not specifically expert editors). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is moved to User:Apovolot/Expert peer review. Some fragments relevant to this discussion is also posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wale Apovolot (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of your articles

I am responding, somewhat belatedly (because I was on a wikibreak), to a message you left at my talk page during the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1.

I see that you are a new WP user and I suggest that you take your time familiarizing yourself with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:DEL and WP:COI. This will answer many of your questions. On the substance of what happened with your article. There were three issues there verifiability, notability and conflict of interest. The main issue of these three was notability so let me concentrate on that first. In order for an article on a mathematical problem, conjecture or theorem to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, notability (as defined by WP:N) of that problem/conjecture/theorem has to be established. It is not enough for a mathematical problem or a conjecture to appear in a peer-reviewed and respected mathematical journal. It is necessary that this problem/conjecture attract substantial attention of other experts in the area and that it receive significant and detailed coverage in their published work. Basically this means that several people, other than the person posing the problem, need to publish papers which include discussion of the importance/interest of the problem and/or attempts to solve it. If not that, there has to be a significant number number of published papers that at least mention the problem as being interesting, without discussing it in detail. WP:V does require that this coverage of the problem occur in published reliable sources, in this case meaning peer-reviewed academic publications. Private communications, personal e-mails, postings in newsgroups and bulletin boards are by definition of WP:V not reliable and not verifiable. Bringing up such sources in an AfD will only produce the opposite effect to the one indended by you. So if you want Wikipedia to have an article about your problem, you have to wait (in practice at least a few years) for the above conditions to be satisfied. If other mathematicians really take an interest in your problem and start writing about it in their papers, then great, kak govoritsya, flag tebe v ruki, and when that happens there will be an article on Wikipedia about your problem. If not, sorry, tough luck. The second problem is with WP:COI. Wikipedia has a very strong presumption (reflected in policies and guidelines like WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT) against usage of Wikipedia for potentially self-promotional puproses. Therefore WP users are strongly discouraged from creating WP articles about themselves or about their work and if such articles are created, they deserve and receive much greater scruitiny. Again, see WP:COI and WP:AUTO. In practice this means that, even if your problem does receive some coverage by independent reliable sources, it will be harder for such an article to survive on Wikipedia if you yourself create it (generally, a more convincing proof of notability would be expected) than if somebody else creates such an article. In fact, when there is a new article created on Wikipedia about a concept/theorem/problem that is identified as named after some person (such as, say, Povolotsky's problem or Povolotsky's theorem), then a part of passing the initial WP:V and WP:N test will be to show that the concept/theorem/problem is indeed widely referred to by that very name by independent reliable sources. The third basic problem is verifiability. Since everybody can edit Wikipedia, people edit anonymously and there is no way to check anyone's qualifications here, Wikipedia's verifiability policy relies on coverage provided by independent reliable sources; in case of mathematics this means articles in peer-reviewed academic journals/books. You may not like it (and if so you can try Scholarpedia which uses the expert-based model), but this principle is the cornerstone and bedrock of how Wikipedia operates. It is the very essense of what Wikipedia is: everyone can edit and everybody has equal voice, from a highschool student to a university professor (of which I am one). In the case of your article, there was some discussion of whether Sloane's OEIS counts as a reliable source. Although it is not a standard type math publication, I personally would be quite willing to consider it a reliable source, although others would still need to be convinced. But, as I explained above, that issue was the least and a fairly small part of the bigger problem, which is establishing notability. I hope that you don't take all of this personally and that you will decide to stay on Wikipedia and to contribute to the project within the community's standards and guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nsk92 - Thanks for the very useful and detailed info disclosing rigorous Wikipedia guidelines. On another hand (and believe me, I am not adopting the "sour grapes" approach) it strikes me so profoundly that the execution of those so strict guidelines could by chance be performed by ignorant and sometimes very arrogant participants - that is why I am suggesting to consider the additional (at least optionally available) review procedures (see my "Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles" posting). Apovolot (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Got your message

I will have to look into what you are discussing. It may take until tomorrow. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not know a lot about diophantine equations. What I do notice is that your equations resemble those covered by Thue's theorem. The factorial terms might in general amount to terms of degree greater than 2. Thue's theorem says that certain diophantine equations of degree greater than 2 have at most finitely many solutions.

The crucial question seems to be whether your equations have been investigated and publicized by others. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest notice too

Given your user name, I am guessing you are the author of the math problems you keep writing about. In that case please see the following:

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ruhrfisch, I am not talking anymore about math problems, for which I indeed am the author - I accepted the ruling in that regard. At this point I am talking re obvious inadequacy of the review process for the articles having to do with science. Please read the "Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles" section on my page above, discussing this proposal. Apovolot (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I see that you are laboring under a severe misapprehension of what Wikipedia is and how it works. So at the risk of being repetitive, let me go through the basic points again:

• There is no "peer review" in Wikipedia articles in the sense you use the term, for science-related articles or articles on any other subject. Instead of soliciting the opinion of experts regarding including or deleting science-related articles (which is how peer-reviewed journals publishing original research operate), Wikipedia relies on only including information that is already published in scientific journals and books and that already went through peer review there.
• Wikipedia does not publish original research: this is one of its most basic principles enshrined in the policy WP:NOR. Nor is Wikipedia an appropriate forum for discussing new scientific ideas: there are bulletin boards, newsgroups, etc, elsewhere on the web, where such discussions happen.
• Wikipedia does not (and, I am sure, will never do in the future) encourage users to reveal their real-life identity. Again, this is one of Wikipedia's most basic and sacred principles enshrined in WP:PRIVACY policy. In fact any attempts by one user to force another user to reveal his/her identity (or to out them, as it is called here), are the surest way to get permanently blocked or banned from Wikipedia. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users use pseudonyms rather than their real names. This practice reflects one of the core values of Wikipedia and it is not going to change.
• Anyone can edit any Wikipedia article and participate in any Wikipedia discussion, such as an AfD. Again, this is one of the core values and most basic and sacred principles of Wikipedia, its motto and a central part of its ethos. Any attempts to restrict the right to edit certain articles or to vote in AfDs to a certain class of users, such as those who have revealed their real identity, are absolutely doomed to failure. This is simply not what Wikipedia is. In fact one is not even required to register as a wikipedia user to edit articles or vote in AfDs; lots of WP:IP users do that without registering and their opinions count as much as anybody else's. The only thing that is required from Wikipedia users is that they respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and a code of conduct outlined in them.
• Wikipedia does not have a centralized organizational system. There are no editors-in-chief here or editorial boards or anything of the sort. Instead decisions are made by consensus among those users who choose to participate in the discussion on a particular topic or issue.
• A few more remarks on the substantive issue of peer review, as you understand the term. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia relies on published material that has already passed peer review in places where it was published. That is what the WP:V and WP:RS are about. Second, and here I am speaking as a tenured university professor and a professional mathematician, trust me: the de facto notability standards for articles on science-related topics (except for biographical articles about scientists) are way more lenient here (in my opinion often too lenient) than anything you would find in an expert-based system, such as peer-reviewed journals or enterprises like Citizendium or Scholarpedia. In practice it is not too much to ask for a topic to be discussed in several published journal articles and when people who are not experts in the area see such a Wikipedia article, with say 5-10 footnotes, they are very unlikely to AfD it. Also, there are other safeguards against hasty or uninformed deletion decisions, such as WP:DRV (where outcomes of deletion debates can be appealed) and deletion sorting lists, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science, where AfDs on science-related articles are listed. People who are interested in science-related AfDs watch-list this delition sorting list, which in practice ensures that there will be some scientists participating in any given science-related AfD. I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year, and am a regular AfD participant, and in my experience the system, while far from perfect, works reasonably well.
• Finally, I very strongly suggest that, before you make any policy-making proposals, you take your time to get to know the place, spend a few months as a Wikipedia user, edit some articles (really, you are very much encourged to!), participate in some AfDs and see how Wikipedia really works on the inside. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Conjectures

well, all I can tell you is I've run into some issues and just swallow and accept the editorial mods made by the process. I can look at your work if I have time, a big if. They may well be valid but you would need to climb the peer-review wall to publish at the least via arxiv.org. If it's any consolation, I had posted an edit in Prime Signature article once I felt was beyond valid that was wiped. Additionally, others have conjectures are of interest and could be valid but Wikipedia is not the venue to introduce them, other than brief mention in a Talk page.--Billymac00 (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What about this?

Dear Apovolot,

I suggest the following criteria for someone to be an expert editor:

1. They should have edited at least 100 distinct pages in their field

2. They should have made at least 500 edits in their field

3. They should have participated in many peer reviews (how many?)

4. They should have edited pages which are considered at the 'centre' of their field. For instance, in mathematics, someone would be considered an 'expert' editor if he has contributed significantly to pages such as: Lie group, Topological group, Group (mathematics), Fibre bundle etc... (concepts which are crucial to mathematics).

5. They should have also edited at least 50 concepts which are quite specialized in a field. For instance Moore space (in topology), Essential range (in measure theory), Projective space (not so specialized) (in projective geometry), Banach space (in functional analysis), Cohomology (algebraic topology) etc...

6. They also should have collaborated with a good deal of other Wikipedians

Checking whether they have a PhD is not of much use as I mentioned earlier (and is not a fair criterion to check whether they are really an expert). Please tell me what you think.

Topology Expert (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I will agree with all above but I still feel that additionally they should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science (everything you have mentioned above relates to amateur Wikipedia activity ... ). So those people should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by professional scientist. Apovolot (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can name (at least) 10 famous mathematicians or scientists who are currently editing Wikipedia, I can support you. However, how are you going to enlist all such experts? There are so many that it is impossible. Furthermore, ommitting somebody from the list may insult them. Perhaps we should only add someone to the list if he requests and satisfies certain criteria? Maybe he would have a better chance of becoming an 'expert' if he was famous? There has to be certain criteria and certain 'weighting' associated to each criterion which judges whether someone is good enough to be an expert. What do you think?

Topology Expert (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop spamming

Please stop spamming user talk pages. If you would like to draw attention to your proposal, you can use the Wikipedia:Village pump or centralized discussion notice. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, though I wouldn't call it spamming, but since you are Administrator so I have to obey. Would you help to place my proposal to one of those two places, pointed by you ? Apovolot (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post your messages on my User page (which is not the place for talk - please use the talk page). Most users and almost all admins are anonymous because of vandals - people receive abuse and even death threats here. If you want to push this forward, by all means post it to the Wikipedia:Village pump or centralized discussion notice. I do not have much time or interest in doing so. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not the you "have to obey" since I'm an administator; my post was probably too terse. I just keep noticing your messages filling up the screen on my watchlist. General practice is to avoid mass postings of the same message to dozens (I estimated over 100) pages.

My advice is to begin by moving the discussion to a dedicated page, perhaps User:Apovolot/Expert peer review. Any name you like will be fine. Then make a post at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), in a new section, with a 1-paragraph summary of your page. You could also announce it at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. Those announcements will reach far more people than the talk page messages, without filling up anyone's watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk)

Expert Peer Review Process

I am sorry to have been so long replying with comments on your ideas: I knew at once I didn't like them, but it has taken me time to set my thoughts in order about why.

I think you are trying to move WP away from what it has deliberately decide to be, towards something more like a peer-reviewed journal. There are on-line encyclopedias which are more like that - Citizendium, Veropedia, probably others - but (though I don't know much about them) I don't think they are making much impact. Your suggested departure from the policy of no original research would take us even further away from our guiding principles.

One of WP's fundamental principles is "verifiability, not truth". That way, the problem of deciding what is truth is outsourced to the editors of the publications we use as sources. Our problem is reduced to deciding what are reliable sources. If we had our own experts claiming to decide what was truth we would be in an entirely different game, and the sort of arguments we have now would be as nothing compared to those that would arise when two schools of experts each had their own vision of The Truth^TM.

I can also see hideous mountains of bureaucracy arising in the question of who selects the "experts" and validates their qualifications, and in how their superior status is to work in practice.

So far as your more limited idea of advisory panels goes, we already have something like that on a voluntary basis - the WikiProjects, where people interested in a subject "watch" the project's talk page, so that (to give an example) when in the course of your AfD we needed opinions on the status of OEIS, I only needed to post at Talk:Wikiproject Mathematics and within a short time several people who knew about it commented.

Sorry to be negative, but I think your suggestion would dilute the qualities that (for better or worse) make Wikipedia what it is. Now I will go back and see what others have said.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Having gone back and read the others, I see Nsk92 has put my ideas much better. JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is moved to User:Apovolot/Expert peer review. Some fragments relevant to this discussion is also posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales page. Apovolot (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate userpage content

Please note that the content of your userpage, User:Apovolot, is inappropriate per WP:UP guideline. That guideline specifies that Wkipedia is not a free webhost for advertising your off-Wikipedia activities and that the usage of Wikipedia userpages for self-promotional purposes on off-Wiki subjects is inappropriate. Your userpage, User:Apovolot, contains extensive self-promotional material that is not related to your activities as a Wikipedian. Please remove it quickly as otherwise your userpage more be nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Apovolot

User:Apovolot, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apovolot and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Apovolot during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• As you can see, I have closed the discussion as delete; however, I urge you to read my analysis at the discussion page and consider the purpose of Wikipedia is to develop articles on facts that have generally already been established and ideas that have been at least widely reported, if not always adopted. We look for reliable sources, not reliable research, for good grammar and syntax and not good understanding of mathematical proof. Your ideas are wonderful sounding and I've thought before that there ought to be some sort of Wiki/Forum blend that would allow for collaborative work on endeavors such as this; I believe the U.S. Army has been beta testing a form of Wiki for such purposes for general use by their personnel on their Army Knowledge Online website. You might consider finding a group of interested persons and establishing such a site for math work. At the same time, please try your hand at editing some of our math articles, or some other articles in areas completely unrelated to math. Whether you are fixing a misplaced comma or bringing an article to FA status, your work will be much appreciated. Try leaving the new article writing for later. I was already an admin before I wrote even so much as a stub. In any case, I sincerely hope you will stick around and not take this personally at all and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me or any other experienced user.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments at my userpage.

Administrators do not, and should not, merely count up the votes at a discussion and decide what action to take. The purpose of the discussion is to determine what course of action to take, and administrators are supposed to take into account the content of comments, not simply the number of votes. It is not enough to simply count the votes and decide that "5 were for and 5 were against, so there is no consensus". The nature and content of the discussion should inform administrator's decision. I make no actual comments on the specific nature of the MFD you seem to wish to see overturned. I am merely noting that your comment on my userpage indicates that you have a misunderstanding of, in general, how MFDs are supposed to be handled at Wikipedia. If you have any specific concerns, please start a deletion review discussion... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminstrators also do not have to leave detailed descriptions of their rationale. If you want to know why the deletion review (DRV) discussion was closed, contact the administrator who closed it and ask for an explanation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The formal appeals process to overturn any deletion decision is found at WP:DRV. You could also attempt to start an request for comment, but I make no assurances that you will be satisfied by that process over any other. Again, I am not going to comment on the appropriateness of any specific MFD or DRV discussion, so please don't try to get my opinion on this. I can continue to give you options to pursue, but do not think that because I have indicated that these options exist that I am endorsing any result that these options may or may not provide for you, or that you will be satisfied by what happens should you pursue them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You should also read WP:FORUMSHOP. There are rapidly diminishing returns for making multiple attempts to have a decision reached that you agree with. The more different methods you try to "get things to go your way" the less likely each successive attempt will be taken seriously... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User page content

(copied from User talk:Doug#Deletion review for User:Apovolot)
Doug I want to create non-indexed user subpage and move the original content of (as some people on Mfd suggested me to do) - am I "WP legally" allowed to do so ? Apovolot (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• The opinions of some editors at MfD have tended to suggest that user subpages are less strictly controlled than userpages. I find no evidence in policy that this is true and I have completely rejected such arguments when I close MfDs as not based in policy. If you created a user subpage with exactly the content that was deleted, I would consider it recreation of deleted content eligible for speedy deletion.
• A point that hasn't been clearly made to you here too is that a determination of consensus also involves looking at who made the various comments. For example, if a user who has been active since 2004 makes a comment based on the reasons for an existing policy, that may mean more than when a newbie says per nom; in other words, when I'm looking at a discussion I consider not only what was said, but who said it. This does not mean that experienced users can always win the day, the argument can't be their own personal view. But when I see experienced users citing policy to say something isn't allowed and less experienced users saying "oh that's ok to do" I consider the experience of the users in determining what consensus is. You should read WP:Deletion and WP:Consensus, among other policy pages. You should do some editing and consider getting involved in WikiProject Mathematics and, no offense, but stop fighting over this content. Post it on private website and maybe link to it, but stop talking about it on Wikipedia please - it's not yet notable. If you need help, let me know - I'd be glad to assist.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)