User talk:Lev Kalmykov

Welcome!

Hello, Lev Kalmykov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Lev Kalmykov! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lev Kalmykov. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Cellular automaton, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Cellular automaton. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your research Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joseph,

I have a problem with a possible misunderstanding.

My contribution is not about "original research". The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

My contribution also cannot be considered as "spam and advertising": Latest revision as of 17:28, 22 May 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank) Joseph2302 (talk | contribs) (Reverted 2 edits by Lev Kalmykov (talk): Remove spam and advertising. (TW)).

My contribution is appropriate and accurate. It's not about my biography, my personality and it does not contain anything other than a title of the article published in the peer-reviewed journal with IF=1.231 which is indexing in 27 bibliographic bases and another title of the article published by 2013 in the peer-reviewed journal with IF=1.503 which is indexing in 7 bibliographic bases.

Re-posting was caused by the insufficiently correct deletion of this adequate contribution by David Eppstein.

In more details:

The first removal of my contribution “16:01, 21 May 2015‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56,031 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (Undo WP:REFSPAM, WP:TOOSOON to tell whether this is of any significance)” looked biased because I provided a referenced link to the peer-reviewed article (Kalmykov LV, Kalmykov VL (2015) A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata Acta Biotheoretica:1-19 doi:10.1007/s10441-015-9257-9) and it is already indexed in PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25980478. Within a month, it is expected that the article will be indexed in all 27 bases. Besides, this contribution directly corresponds to the title of the published article and Wikipedia's section.

The second removal of the contribution “15:31, 22 May 2015‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56,031 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (Undid revision 663513765 by Lev Kalmykov (talk) same reason. Primary source with absolutely no citations on Google scholar.)” also looked biased because Acta Biotheoretica has Impact Factor 1.231 and indexed in Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Google Scholar, EBSCO, CSA, CAB International, Academic OneFile, Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, CSA Environmental Sciences, Current Contents/ Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences, Elsevier Biobase, EMBiology, Gale, Geobase, Global Health, INIS Atomindex, OCLC, SCImago, Summon by ProQuest, The Philosopher's Index, Zoological Record.

I also provided a link to another peer-reviewed article (Kalmykov LV, Kalmykov VL (2013) Verification and reformulation of the competitive exclusion principle Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 56:124-131 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2013.07.006). It was published in 2013. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals has Impact Factor:1.503. This journal is indexed Science Citation Index; Scopus; Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology; Mathematical Reviews; Research Alert; SCISEARCH; Zentralblatt MATH

This contribution also directly corresponds to the title of the article and Wikipedia's section.

Verification of the competitive exclusion principle and biodiversity paradox were the long-standing problems in theoretical ecology.

I am a novice at Wiki and I need more correct and understandable arguments. May I cite these articles using their titles and referenced links (as I did in these cases) for example after a month when our article from Acta Biotheoretica will be indexed in all 27 bibliographic bases?

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Sincerely,

Lev Kalmykov (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complex system

Hi @Lev Kalmykov:. I very much appreciate your recent contribution to the Complex system lemma, yet I don't approve on adding a reference to your own work (see here): an article which according to Google scholar hasn't been cited yet in any other secondary source.

Now I read your above comment, where you explain you are a newby and what real arguments, why these kind of references are not ok. As a longstanding Wikipedia editor I have noticed, that there is a common misunderstanding with newbies, who think Wikipedia articles should be based on the latest (reliable) research. Now, this type of research is outdated every new year, and we don't want ordinary references replaced every year. We want the most reliable references, who have proven to be over the years, so the article with it references doesn't get outdated that soon. In many situations (as in yours) we are dealing with subjects on which numerous notable articles already exist. We would very much like references to these kind of articles, or even better notable, well cited, secondary sources, that have already covered the field.

I hope this explains some more, why it is generally considered not done for scientists to come and add references to their latest works here. -- Mdd (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Experts in Wikipedia

hi Lev - I saw you just edited this page, so you are around again. I just wanted to point you to our essay giving advice to experts - please see WP:EXPERT. Everything there is true - we love experts in Wikipedia and many experts are highly valued contributors - but when experts use Wikipedia to promote their own ideas and/or publications, that is not a good thing. We really welcome your participation, but only if you are here to build the encyclopedia - not if you are here for self-promotion. Two other useful essays are WP:NOTHERE (e.g here for self-promotion) and WP:HERE (here to build an encyclopedia). I hope that makes sense. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog,

Unfortunately, I could not get an answer to my proposal. I believe that there should be a rule which definitely allows posting relevant information in Wikipedia if it was published in academic peer-reviewed journal which has an impact factor in Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters. The a-priori labeling of relevant scientific knowledge from reliable published sources as "WP: REFSPAM, WG: TOOSOON say whether it is of any significance" looks unacceptable. A removal of such information may be considered as Vandalism on Wikipedia.

If there is no firm rule which explicitly permit authors to post relevant information in Wikipedia if it was published in academic peer-reviewed journal which has an impact factor in Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters, then I offer to implement it. Is it possible? Otherwise, there is too much room for subjective voluntary actions, which are difficult to distinguish from vandalism.

Note: The problem arose when my contribution was deleted. A text of the contribution: “A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata” with the reference to the Wikipedia article ‘Cellular_automaton’ was posted in the section ‘Problems solved’.

The reference: Kalmykov, L. V. & Kalmykov, V. L. A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata. Acta Biotheoretica 63, 203-221, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10441-015-9257-9 (2015).

Impact Factor of the journal 1.231. As our results were published in the peer-reviewed journal which is indexed in Journal Citation Reports, these results are not the "original research" and thus they can be posted in Wikipedia. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Lev Kalmykov (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lev. Would you please step back from the specific content dispute, read WP:SELFCITE, and let me know what you think about what that actually says? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog. Using material you have written or published is allowed. I've tried to explain why I consider that my contribution is highly relevant for that topic. This contribution directly corresponds to the title of the article and Wikipedia's section. It is also concise, accurate and unique. Lev Kalmykov (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it ends with "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." Right? I've opened discussions at the Talk page of both articles. So far the only one who thinks the content belongs, is you. If you don't get some support there from the WP community the content is going to have to stay out. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Complex systems into Artificial life. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the author of the text and figure which unfortunately were deleted from Complex systems. Thank you! Lev Kalmykov (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]