User talk:ResearcherKS9B

Welcome!

Hi ResearcherKS9B! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

Mirror Symbol Hypothesis moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mirror Symbol Hypothesis, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the Submit the draft for review! button atop the article. Silikonz💬 01:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article draws primarily upon two peer reviewed articles from respectable, non-predatory publishers;

1. The first and most importance source is this IEEE TCDS article (please refer to the 2nd to last section, in which the hypothesis is proposed and after which the hypothesis is named): https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9495946

2. The second supporting source is this conference paper which appeared in Springer's Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-93758-4_4

Hence, the article is well supported by reliable, independent sources. Can you please clarify the grounds upon which this article was moved to drafts? ResearcherKS9B (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted the article for review along with a paragraph explaining how it meets each of the notability guidelines. ResearcherKS9B (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mirror Symbol Hypothesis has been accepted

Mirror Symbol Hypothesis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Hello, ResearcherKS9B. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Scientific articles should prefer secondary sources to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

The editing community highly values expert contributors, so I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{Edit COI}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was updating a previous edit with relevant papers from the conference on artificial general intelligence. Previously, the section cited preprints. The update was to correct this to point to actual published research, improving the quality of the article. It was not a change to content (though it appears now the entire latter half of the section has been removed). Can you please review and make appropriate changes as you see fit, rather than removing the entire section? The section on mathematical formalism now ends at 2015, where research in this area has continued since then. ResearcherKS9B (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I would also like to appeal this accusation (I can understand you might see that sort of behaviour on Wikipedia, but mathematical formalisms of AGI is a small field with very few publications - there are not many new relevant publications to cite, and there are only two formalisms with proof of optimality) and I ask that you revert the deletions (make whatever changes you feel appropriate, but effort went into writing those sections and it seems a shame to just throw them out). ResearcherKS9B (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]