User talk:Mwkmin

Welcome!

Hello, Mwkmin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Draft:Igor V. Minin, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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! GPL93 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello, GPL93 and thanks for your comments. Yes, I have edit 2 pages - Draft:Igor V. Minin and Draft:Oleg V. Minin - let me briefly introduce myself. We are twins (brothers) and all our life we are not only friends, but also work together. Soon we have an anniversary. Our colleagues asked us to post information about us on Wikipedia. We found the ads of a “professional” providing services for posting articles on Wikipedia, but he turned out to be a scammer (https://allll.net/wiki/Contentino.ru unfortunately in Russian). I had to learn the Wikipedia programming language and I tried to post 2 articles (in the future I plan to edit some articles on photonics).

Unfortunately, I do not understand very deeply when the article from the draft status will go publicly available. Can you help in this matter? We have no conflicts of interest, all information presented on these pages is easily verified. For example, on this article - Optical hooks, Nature Photonics, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-019-0403-9 ) My email is shown in Draft:Igor V. Minin Thank you in advance! Mwkmin (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's some misunderstanding here. In writing about yourself and your brother, you very decidedly have a conflict of interest. This does not mean you can't write a draft, but it means that you need to be aware of how difficult it is to write a neutral article.

The current drafts seem to use only your own publications as references. That's not sufficient to meet Wikipedia's criteria for including an article. The general criteria for establishing notability for academics can be found at NACADEMIC. See if you can make the case by more explicitly referring to one of those. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jmcgnh, thanks for the comment. We took into account your comments (previously we did not want to increase the list of references). As for Wikipedia's criteria for Academics please see Awards. Is it acceptable? Mwkmin (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft claims that you've been awarded a Nobel Prize but I don't see your names in any lists of laureates. Yes, the Nobel for Physics would certainly establish notability. I'm not sure the other awards you've mentioned would mean quite so automatic a qualification - and there would need to be a reference to an independent source which would verify the award. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding. I will be grateful if you indicate the place where it says that we've been awarded a Nobel Prize... This is not in the text! There is a mention that we are awarded the Nobel medal, there is such a medal in Russia (see [1] in Russian), but it is not related to Nobel Prize. You are mistaken. Mwkmin (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a misunderstanding. A medal named after Alfred Nobel, but which is not the Nobel Prize itself, does not appear to meet the NACADEMIC criteria for awards - highly prestigious, national or international. And stated in your draft without a supporting reference, so still not able to help establish notability.

I very much dislike arguing with autobiographers about whether or not they meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability because it ends up feeling disrespectful to people who are very accomplished and have achieved a great deal. The Wikipedia criteria are intentionally quite stringent, but this can be disappointing and frustrating to someone who wants to write an article about themselves. I would like to see you succeed in getting this article accepted, if we can get it written in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards. The current drafts suffer greatly from a lack of independent references and correcting that is probably the least contentious way to go forward. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not argue, I clarify the principles of publishing articles. Of course, we will ask experts to adjust the text to meet the criteria. Another problem is that the text is in English, and the description of the same medals (link) is in Russian. This is not convenient for the reader.Mwkmin (talk)

Further WP:COI

I noticed articles where you are inserting your own research paper in the body of an article as an external link[2][3] or simply citing claims to... yourself[4]. As was noted above by jmcgnh it is a conflict of interest for you to edit articles related to your associations/insert your own material. The body of Wikipedia articles should not contain external links, they belong in an external link section (see WP:EL). Research papers themselves are primary sources, they should not be cited directly unless a secondary source has already synthesized them (see WP:PST). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT an advertisement or a conflict of interest for our and other articles. These are really indications (links) to scientific works, where FIRST new results were obtained. But I will take into account your commentMwkmin (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"FIRST new results" ? According to who? See, you can't make that claim from the original research of looking at a primary source paper and definitely can not make that claim citing your self. Someone else has to make that claim. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

strange statement. Well, let's wait when the corresponding scientist in these fields, having authority in the world, makes the appropriate link. But this is unlikely to benefit the reader until such a scientist appears on Wiki.It seems to me a more constructive and correct approach when you or someone else can give a more weighty link to the appropriate source.Mwkmin (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will not argue with you, I am a novice user of Wiki. But I repeat - to assess the legitimacy of a particular link to a scientific article, you must be a scientist with experience and recognition in the relevant field. Perhaps you are. Eshm links are not self-promotion - believe me, links on the Wiki to articles for a scientist (for ratings or other purposes) do NOT give ANYTHING, but are convenient only for BEGINNERS. Any instruction cannot be considered formally, you need to look at the merits. But thanks for your attention.Mwkmin (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a procedure to assess the legitimacy of a particular link to a scientific article, and its not whether the editor in question is a scientist. Its whether the material in question has already been published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Its actually a policy, and should be followed. I thank you for your thanks and hope I helped pointing out Wikipedia policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the formal approach does not justify itself and it is necessary to consider each specific case. Once again I repeat - I will not argue, but if interested - pls see[5] or [6] as example that the links you have deleted were correct. Mwkmin (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]