User talk:Tim32

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Greetings...

Hello, Tim32, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.
I hope you like it here and decide to stay!
Happy editing! James SugronoContributions 14:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical chemistry

Do you have a reference for "Mathematical chemistry" being also known as computer chemistry? Incidentally only today computer chemistry was created as a redirect to computational chemistry. If you are right it should be a redirect to mathematical chemistry. --Bduke 08:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see (based on graph theory applications):
  • M.I.Trofimov, E.A.Smolenskii,Application of the electronegativity indices of organic molecules to tasks of chemical informatics, Russian Chemical Bulletin, 2005, 54(9): 2235.(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11172-006-0105-6):
P.2235:"Key words: chemical informatics, databases, generation of graphs, isomorphism of graphs, computer chemistry, recognition of chemical structures, topological index, electronegativity."
  • M. I. Trofimov, An Optimization of Procedure for Calculation of Hosoya's Index, J. Math. Chem., 1991, 8, 327
  • M. I. Trofimov and E. A. Smolenskii, Izv. Akad. Nauk. Ser. Khim., 2000, 401 [Russ. Chem. Bull., Int. Ed., 2000, 49, 402]:
P.402: "Key words: computer chemistry,..."
P.407: "...which is topical for computer chemistry of organic compaunds".
Also, please see my comment Talk:Mathematical chemistry#What is mathematical chemistry?:
  • Generally computer chemistry (mathematical chemistry) is based on graph theory applications for organic chemistry. ... computer chemistry is not computational chemistry.
  • It would be better to redirect mathematical chemistry to computer chemistry, where computer chemistry is main page.
Hope it helps!--Tim32 09:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good useful stuff here. It will take me a while to look at it. I agree that the core of mathematical chemistry, at least in practice, is graph theory and possibly topological ideas. I do not agree that it would be better to redirect mathematical chemistry to computer chemistry. The only relevant journal is the Journal of Mathematical Chemistry. However it looks as if computer chemistry should be redirected to mathematical chemistry not computational chemistry. --Bduke 09:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, some specialists from catalysis area often note that their area is older than mathematical chemistry and also "mathematical" (based on differential equations) ;) The name "Journal of Mathematical Chemistry" is good name for journal only, like "Chemical graph theory" was very good name for the book by Bonchev and Rouvray, but it is not chemical branch. Another relevant journal is Journal of Chemical Informatics and Computer Science (renamed now), 3rd journal is [Internet Electronic Journal of Molecular Design] etc. --Tim32 10:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But molecular design or drug design or similar is not called mathematical chemistry, even though it uses mathematics. It is called computational chemistry or molecular modeling. I do not see the term "computer chemistry" used either to any significant extent. Have you seen User:Itub's comments on Talk:Mathematical chemistry? --Bduke 11:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of sophisticated questions may be possible here. For example, what is the difference between physical chemistry and chemical physics? Or between quantum chemistry and quantum physics? I had began my investigations in Lab of Computer Chemistry of N.D.Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry of Russian Academy of Sci. in 1986. Month ago I have written big article "Computer Chemistry" for Russian Wiki. This article seems to be successful – minor corrections only till now. You can try to use my approach to avoid too long discussions with other editors. BTW, sometime synthetic methods for drugs called "drug design" also.--Tim32 07:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize that drug design can be synthetic chemistry. A question: in Russian do the terms "computer chemistry" and "computational chemistry" have the same distinction as they do in Western Europe, or the US. I know of lots of Labs of Computational Chemistry in English speaking countries but no Labs of Computer Chemistry. Maybe we have to be careful of the translation of terms. So, as a further question, does the Russian Wiki article on "Computer Chemistry" have any overlap with the English Wiki article on "Computational Chemistry"? --Bduke 09:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the terms "computer chemistry" and "computational chemistry" have the same distinction in Russian. I do not find any overlap. You wrote: "Maybe we have to be careful of the translation of terms." The Russian terms "computer chemistry" and "computational chemistry" are translations from English. The Russian term "computer" moved from English. Before PC we used term "Electronic Calculation Machine" (ECM) in Russian. IMHO, this problem is more important for Wiki, and is not so important for science. I think, firstly, we have to insert more facts to "computer chemistry" (or "math. chem.") article: molecular graph models, indices, algorithms etc. Note, please, today in science we have a lot of cross interactions: biochemistry+ synthetic chemistry+ NMR+ ESR + computer chemistry+ quantum chemistry+ molecular mechanics may be used in single research and discussed in single paper.--Tim32 10:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information. Regarding your last point, I do not disagree, but I am not clear about its implications for Wikipedia. Cross interaction is fine but it is still cross interaction - i.e. interaction between different things which need to be addressed differently on Wikipedia. But I do agree that many of the articles broadly in the area we are talking about do need more content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 11:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I do agree that different things need to be addressed differently on Wikipedia, at the same time some overlaps may be possible. To minimize overlapping we will need to move some fragments from one article to another article. But I think this may be the second step, the first is "more content".--Tim32 11:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also. Sometime some Wiki editor may find a paper with cross interaction "computer chemistry+ molecular mechanics" and he/she may decide that molecular mechanics is a part of computer chemistry. But sometime some Wiki editors do not want to consider an article in chemical journal as interaction "chemistry+ computer sci." It is hard problem for Wiki. --Tim32 11:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of vandalism

Please do not use "vandalism" to describe edits that are clearly in good faith, as you did when reverting this edit. It is a violation of our policies and guidelines on assuming good faith and civil behavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"self-promotion of ref to an insignificant paper which adds nothing to the article" is absurd reason, you should prove before that this is "insignificant paper" firstly for chemistry and secondly for graph theory. This is not task for Wiki editors and nobody here should do similar proving and claming (Wiki editors are not official experts), but everybody has to keep the neutral point of view: "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable", so when anybody deletes a reference to opposite view this action looks like vandalism. I have written a lot for Wiki, and I write only items about I have professional knowleges. So, I use references to my papers (I have written more than 100) as well as to other papers. There is no rule in Wiki against, hence "self-promotion" is absurd reason. There are a lot of references to my papers in Wiki and nowhere else I heard about "self-promotion"!
Not long ago I wrote you that you deleted one link to arxiv (because it “is not peer-reviewed”) and added another link to the arxiv and that it seems that your criteria of notability is too original. It seems now you remember this incedent…;)
Also not long ago I wrote to User:Mikkalai: “You wrote the Hosoya index article just after I had inserted its definition to the matching article…” It seems now he remember this incedent…;)--Tim32 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Hi. I wanted to ask, what is the connection of the reference (K. Kindler, K. Lührs (1966). "Studien über den Mechanismus chemischer Reaktionen, XXIII. Hydrierungen von Nitrilen unter Verwendung von Terpenen als Wasserstoffdonatoren". Chemische Berichte. 99: 227–232. doi:10.1002/cber.19660990135. )you gave to cunane or Cubane? Thanks --Stone (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got this reference from March’s Advanced Organic Chemistry, please checkup text of the paper, perhaps, it is wrong reference. Sorry for that.--Tim32 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal FAC

Hi Tim32, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! I'm just here to point out a friendly suggestion regarding FACs. Unfortunately, in its current state, Pascal doesn't meet the featured article criteria for a number of reasons, the most important of which is its lack of in-line citations. I've made a few suggestions about its future, namely a copyedit and a peer review, and am wondering whether you wish for the article to be removed from the nominations list for the time being. If so, just leave a note on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates or User talk:SandyGeorgia. If you need any further advice, don't hesitate to get in touch with me. Thanks! PeterSymonds | talk 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PeterSymonds, thanks for your comments! Unfortunately, I do not understand exactly your most important reason about citations. Please, give me any example of possible citation for this article. Any text from any Wirth's book? Why we need it here?
Also, in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pascal (programming language) you wrote "There is a lot of unreferenced criticism"... Please, give me only one example of unreferenced criticism from the article. Generally, the source of the criticism is "Why Pascal is not my Favorite Programming language" by Kernighan. As for me I do not like Kernighan's papers, but I think, the criticism should be saved for NPOV. Thanks! --Tim32 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By unreferenced criticism, I meant that none of the criticism was without in-line citations. The thing is, is that citations tell the reader exactly where the source came from, so for example, although you have a great further reading section, I don't know which one of those books, say the sentence, "Although Kernighan decried Pascal's lack of type escapes ("there is no escape" from "Why Pascal is not my Favorite Programming language"), the uncontrolled use of pointers and type escapes have become highly criticized features in their own right, and the languages Java, C# and others feature a sharp turn-around to the Pascal point of view..." came from. Verifiability and accuracy are important in encyclopedia articles, and that is the reason we use in-line citations, to reference claims, giving details of exactly who made those claims and where (book, newspaper etc). Do you see what I mean? PeterSymonds | talk 21:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The section Criticism may be following:
While very popular (although more so in the 1980s and early 1990s than now), early versions of Pascal have been widely criticized (See, Comparison of Pascal and C ). Based on his experience with Pascal (and earlier with ALGOL) Niklaus Wirth developed several more programming languages...
Would it be sufficient improvement? It seems, additional citations are not necessary for other sections... --Tim32 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert rule

Please be advised that if you continue revert war without addressing the issues stated in edit summaries and talk page, you may be blocked from editing, per WP:3RR policy. `'Míkka>t 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You began the revert war without addressing the issues stated in edit summaries and talk page! And you hashave to be blocked firstly!--Tim32 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Graph isomorphism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You are very close to violating 3RR, which can only be "justified" in cases of true Vandalism. Please ensure consensus is reached on the article Talk page. BMW(drive) 11:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Belated Welcome

Hello, Tim32! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Verbal chat 06:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

I've added the above as I notice you've never seen it before, and because it has useful links to policies, guidelines, and essays on how wikipedia works. Frequently Asked Questions, No original research and What Wikipedia is not may be useful for you. Yours, Verbal chat 06:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Graph isomorphism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 10:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not start and restart this war and I used the talk page to get the consensus among editors, but not you, not other editors replied my and other notes in this talk page. This means you and other editors have no new reasons against, but as was shown your old reasons were invalid. And so, as I wrote in comment to my edition this was beseless deletion! Hope it helps to understand you this your mistake. --Tim32 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User Talk:Verbal has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Verbal chat 08:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Edits by Mikka and Arthur Rubin

replied here as Tim's comment is violation of WP:TALK:

My publications are none of your business Tim, and continually asking editors questions like this is hounding and close to an attempted outing. Also, we don't argue from authority on wikipedia so please drop that line. You haven't proved anything on this page I'm afraid, and if you continue to call people racists or imply they are racists you will probably be quickly blocked. Verbal chat 08:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Talk:Graph isomorphism: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Verbal chat 08:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only asked you to help me to understand your point of view via your publications. Is it forbidden to ask a help? Why you so agressive? Please stay cool also! I did not comment contributors, but their actions only! For example, unreasonable deletion the info about SMILES!--Tim32 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

I fixed the link some time ago. Verbal chat 20:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But did not find where I where I had written "racist"? Cite, please! --Tim32 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion isn't good for the project, so I suggest we stop it. I note now that you said Rasism not racist. Verbal chat 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it mean that your alerts was your mistake, and now you are sorry for this?--Tim32 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you are upset. Verbal chat 08:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! No problem. --Tim32 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits at Graph isomorphism

Your repeated addition to this article of a reference to your own work is a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You used absurd reason, because "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed" WP:COI--Tim32 (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition of this paper to the article falls under self-promotion, which is indeed covered by the WP:COI guideline. Since your paper has been reverted so many times, you should now be aware that its inclusion in the article does not have consensus. Nobody besides yourself has ever supported it. Even if this paper were not your own work, your repeated insertion against the advice of others meets the definition of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This so-called "consensus" had been made long time ago, the main argument was "references to the paper" (who cited it). Now you can find in Google scholar: Arjeh M. Cohen , Jan Willem Knopper and Scott H. Murray, Automatic Proof of Graph Nonisomorphism, Mathematics in Computer Science, 2008, doi 10.1007/s11786-008-0052-8. Also, nobody found better proved GI algorithm for chemistry. So, the situation changed, and the "consensus" has to be revised. Also, note please I answered all questions to me in GI discussion page, but nobody answered many of my questions. So, it seems they have no argument against my insertions. From that time I made a lot of insertions to other pages, but you want to note only this one. Let you look all my works for wiki -- may be you will say me thanks as well? :)--Tim32 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Graph isomorphism

Hello Tim32. I see that you have resumed trying to insert a reference to your own work in the above article. I believe that your edits qualify for a block under WP:COI and WP:EW, since nobody but you has ever supported the inclusion of this paper. Since you may have forgotten my earlier warning (just above) I am now reminding you that you may be blocked the next time you restore this reference to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston. You can not see that I "have resumed trying to insert a reference to my own work in the above article"! The fact is that I did not try to insert the reference to Graph isomorphism. There is another article and another context. Also, you wrote: "I believe that your edits qualify for a block under WP:COI and WP:EW, since nobody but you has ever supported the inclusion of this paper". You did a mistake here: nobody supported the inclusion of this paper, because nobody else from the editors of the article has info about current state of computer chemistry, its needs and GI applications for the computer chemistry. Currently (17:24, 24 June 2009) Verbal had written "Reverted 1 edit by Tim32; I don't see a problem with the refs. Please discuss on talk. (TW)" And I wrote my arguments on the talk page: the fact is that today only graph canonization approach for chemistry is noted in "Graph isomorphism problem"(Applications section). This is extremely incomplete! And I have the link to improve the article. If you can find any better link -- do it, but you should not offend me by unreasonable suspicion about WP:COI. Moreover you MUST assume good faith -- it is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia WP:AGF. Hope it helps for your understanding! Please, feel free to contact me at anytime with any questions about.--Tim32 (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on the name of the WP article. I consider this edit of yours at Graph isomorphism problem to be long-term edit warring, since others have removed the citation of this paper repeatedly, and you are the only one who supports including it in general articles about graph isomorphism. My block warning still stands. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But others (i.e. a few persons only, who have removed the citation) have no reasons to do it! They unable to say something against my arguments which arguments I had described on the talk page. So, their repeated removings look like vandalism. And I see you have no serious reason as well. The fact is that the noted section of the article is extremely incomplete! And the fact is that others are unable to improve it! So, as you can see your warning is nonsense. Please, answer my quetion: why you do not believe in good faith from my side? --Tim32 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TPG

Hi, not sure if you are aware, but an editor may remove any post any other editor leaves on their talk page. This is expressly permitted in the talk page guidelines. Their removal should be taken as assurance that they have seen the post. Do not disparage them or edit war to replace or repeat the post. Hope this helps! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi KillerChihuahua, thank you for your help, yes I know that an editor may remove any post. But in this situation saved message by the editor looks like defamation. Also this his action means that he has no arguments against my reasons and he is not interested in consensus. For a case I copy the removed post here:
"Which article did you mean? Graph isomorphism or Graph isomorphism problem? What discussion did you mean? There was only one discussion with me on talk page of Graph isomorphism problem. And this discussion was not complete: nobody answered my questions there. There were many discussions on talk page of Graph isomorphism. For example, the discussion about SMILES. I insisted that SMILES should be inserted in Application section and now that my edition is realized in Application section of Graph isomorphism problem! Is this my edition disruption? About my so-called "COI": nobody proved it! Self-citation is not forbidden in Wiki, so you have to prove that it is insignificant paper which adds nothing to the article. But this paper was cited in another printed source, so the fact is that this is significant paper :)"

--Tim32 (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, he's allowed to do so - and you have made a couple of posts since he asked you to stop ("no more here, please"[1]) so continuing could be considered harassment, a blockable offense. Keep your discussion about the article to the article talk page. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time he wrote false about me on his talk page.--Tim32 (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing actionable there. He is entitled to his opion, however insanely wrong it might be. Ignore it, really. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately he blocks any my edition in Graph isomorphism and Graph isomorphism problem, but do not want to discuss it in articles talk page. He repeats absurd reason about COI, "because of self-citation", but self-citation is not forbidden in Wiki, so he has to prove that it is insignificant paper which adds nothing to the article. But link to this paper is very important for Graph isomorphism problem: only one approach (for chemical applications) is noted in the article. It is extremely incomplete! This paper described another approaches and it was cited in another printed source.--Tim32 (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content dispute. We have other venues for this; it is true talking to the other editor is the first thing to try, but if that fails, then try WP:3O, WP:RFC, or WP:MEDIATION. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thank you. Would you be so kind as to be mediator for the dispute?--Tim32 (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Tim32 enters mediation, I hope he will tell the entire history (going back many months), and include the name of any editor other than himself who has ever supported inclusion of his favored paper in either Graph isomorphism or Graph isomorphism problem. He has been revert-warring against consensus for a long time, but at present he is restrained by my willingness to block him if he adds the paper one more time. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, was this hostile note necessary? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there was no editor (except me) who would be informed about graph isomorphism problem as well as about modern chemistry problems. Again, all other editors based their solution on absurd reason about COI. However, self-citation is not forbidden in Wiki. The fact is that nobody proves that it is insignificant paper which adds nothing to the article. Obviously, it is impossible, because only one approach (for chemical applications) is noted in the article. It is extremely incomplete! This paper described another approaches and it was cited in another printed source. You can see, in articles history, how some editors tried to find another better paper about another approaches. They did not find it. At the same time the current context of the Application section is my edition also. Unfortunately other editors are poor informed about needs of modern chemistry.--Tim32 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If you go directly to mediation, your request will almost certainly be decined. You should try third opinion or article Rfc. If those fail, then mediation is the next step. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thanks. You are right. Would you be so kind as to be third opinion person?--Tim32 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maths is not my thing. Also, requesting a specific editor to be the third opinion is not how it works. I suggest you go for article Rfc rather than 3O, as it appears several editors have already weighed in and it is not between you and one other editor, but between several editors. Rfc is the appropriate venue for that situation. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion elsewhere

Hello Tim32. I posted a comment concerning your edits about graph isomorphism at User talk:KillerChihuahua. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations, Failure to AGF, Harassment

This edit[2] is an accusation of canvassing. I suggest you strike or remove it. If you have evidence of canvassing, report it on ANI. If not, then you are making a personal attack and failing to AGF. If you do not understand any of what I have said to you, let me know and I will explain. Know this: you are in danger of being blocked for harassing other editors. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ok? --Tim32 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. Remember always to comment on the content not the contributor. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thanks. --Tim32 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Wikipedia

Hi, I saw you wrote in WikiProject Discrimination talk page that you suspect racism and discrimination in Wikipedia. I am on a search on the same topic. I suffered myself twice discriminative attitude after editing and also I see some issues are edited with inserting discriminative content. Also I dont see any policies here about stoping such behaviour. I dont know someone to suffered any consequesnes of being discriminative here, which in my opinion should be changed. The discimination I see is: gender, language, (nationality), color (race), etc. I think this should be somehow stopped. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Yes, you are right. Also, there is so-called "Conflict of interest" discrimination (which is not real conflict for Wiki interest). Please, see about editions of Graph isomorphism and Graph isomorphism problem on this page as well as on talk pages of these articles. With best wishes! --Tim32 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. I also saw a category Women mathematicians offered for deletion. I think this is an outragios discrimination. I myself was a very good mathematician with having in real life harsh discrimination on sex begining with the early age "there are no women mathematicians". So especially such conduct about category women mathematicians is very disgusting for me. Please write in my talk page because I write in Bulgarian Wikipedia more often and here just from time to time, and i forget to see your discussion page. I think there should be made a new rule in Wikipedia affecting editors' and administrators' actions on behalf of racism, ethnocentrism, harsh nationalism, discrimination on women, discrimination on base of gender, nationality, political system, language, sexual orientation, etc, pornographic inclusion and these events to be stoped in Wikipedia. As you understand I am a liberal in my political views and discrimination is most disguesting for me. I also think a group on making such rule shuld be formed here, in Wikipedia. If you are interested please write in my page. Thanks and best regards, --SofieElisBexter (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here: Proposal for stopping discriminative practices in writing in Wikipedia and in attitudes between editors written by me in discussion at Discrimination Project page. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, OK!--Tim32 (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's happen?

Hi, Tim32! What's happen? What does it mean "graphs"? Why I should waste MY time on this nonsense? --Mart071 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Graph isomorphism

Hi, Tim32. You have been involved in a lengthy discussion at Talk:Graph isomorphism, the topic of which is a paper you wrote. This is not an appropriate use of the Wikipedia talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which says, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page … is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Whether or not your paper is correct is not the point. In order to be considered a reliable source, your paper needs to be published in an established peer-reviewed journal. See Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship for more detail.

Wikipedia editors are not qualified to peer-review your paper for you or to determine whether or not your results are mathematically correct. Your requests at Talk:Graph isomorphism for "constructive criticism" of your paper are entirely inappropriate.

You seem to have suggested that a reference to your paper should be included in the Graph isomorphism article. (If you have not suggested this, I don't see what the discussion has to do with the article at all.) Many other editors have disagreed, yet you continue to argue for its inclusion. This is a pretty clear case of conflict of interest on your part. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself and Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself for more information.

Because of the inappropriateness of the discussion, I have hidden that portion of the talk page. You have since reverted my edits twice ([3], [4]). Please be aware that reverting a third time in 24 hours is a violation of the three-revert rule and may result in your being blocked.

Please drop this discussion now. There is clear consensus on the talk page that your paper, not having been published in an established peer-reviewed journal and thus not qualifying as a reliable source, is not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. —Bkell (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bkell, However, since April 17, 2010, User:David Eppstein, User:Arthur Rubin, User:EmilJ took part in this discussion, and nobody said that it "is not the place for this". Moreover previous undeleted part is similar discussion about another "OR". Why you did not hide that part also? ;-) I see no logic in your action, this looks like destructive action for normal discussing the Graph isomorphism article. (See Wiki alerts also).--Tim32 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other editors took part in the discussion. That does not mean the discussion was appropriate—it was not. Now, the immediately preceding section of the talk page is an editor asking for clarification about the complexity of the graph isomorphism problem (for the purposes of the content of the Graph isomorphism article), and providing links to two papers (written by third parties) which claim to give polynomial-time algorithms; the response was that neither of these has been published in a reliable source, and that was the end of the discussion. In the portion I hid, on the other hand, you were explicitly asking other editors to provide "constructive criticism" on your own paper. Do you see the difference? —Bkell (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not see the difference with the first part, which part you did not hide. Also, you are not right, when you claim that "neither ... has been published in a reliable source". -- There is a lot of links to arXiv in Wiki. For example, see Grigori Perelman. Anyhow, this is the fact that "other editors took part in the discussion" (you agreed with this fact), so you must not delete the discussion, even if you dislike it! --Tim32 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The difference is that no other editor was asking Wikipedia editors to review his own paper. If you cannot see this difference I don't know how I can make it any clearer. (2) The arXiv, by itself, is not a reliable source. There is no process of peer review there, and the fact that a paper is posted on the arXiv does not imply that it is correct, meaningful, influential, or widely accepted. True, some papers posted on the arXiv (such as Perelman's) may be widely accepted, on their own merits, by the professional community, but it is a fallacy to claim that a paper is a reliable source because it has been posted on the arXiv. —Bkell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) I did not ask Wikipedia editors to review the paper 2) The paper is based on peer reviewed source

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11172-006-0105-6 and I think this source should be added to GI applications section (chemical application) 3) Nobody found any error in the paper, so it has to be noted in Wiki article as well 4) Anyhow, discussion about noted questions must not be deleted or hidden. --Tim32 (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, you didn't ask Wikipedia editors to review the paper? Twice you directly asked for "constructive criticism" on your paper. You also inferred that, since you got no replies for a month, "nobody found any error" and therefore your paper must be correct (having passed the review, I suppose), when it is much more likely that your paper was simply being ignored. No one here is under any obligation to read or comment on your paper, and you cannot conclude that a lack of criticism from Wikipedia editors is the same as a badge of approval—and anyway, approval from Wikipedia editors isn't meaningful, since we aren't qualified to judge the correctness of your paper. Your actions show that you expect Wikipedia to act as a reviewer for your paper—by pointing out errors, offering suggestions, or proclaiming your paper correct—when that is not what Wikipedia does at all. If you want constructive criticism on your paper, or you want someone to carefully read your paper to see whether it is correct, then you need to submit your paper to a peer-reviewed journal. That is exactly what peer-reviewed journals do. It is not what Wikipedia does. (By the way, "Wiki" is not a short name for Wikipedia. A wiki is a specific type of editable website, of which Wikipedia is one among many.) —Bkell (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that I didn't ask Wikipedia editors to review the paper. If somebody said something interesting, but it was not articulated, then surely I will ask him for "constructive criticism". Wouldn't you ask the same in such situation? ;-) But again, it was not my initiative to ask Wikipedia editors to review the paper. If Emil found an error and reported it, then what I can do? I said him "thanks", but I did not asked him to do it. If Arthur Rubin said that he found another error, but I did not understand his poor articulated report, then I asked him for "constructive criticism". But I did not asked about review the paper also. Anyhow, a few bug reports are not complete paper review. (Did you know the difference?) Also, the fact is that the first version of the paper was not ignored. So why do you think that the second version is ignored?I have a lot of replies for the 2nd version via email, and I do not see that the paper is ignored. And I do not "expect Wikipedia to act as a reviewer". BTW words have different meaning (according context) - in my context Wiki=Wikipedia and I see you understand it. Anyhow, you should not remove or hide any part of a discussion in talk page. It is obviously that my paper was not off-topic, as well as the discussion of http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2010, which you did not hide!--Tim32 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am finished with this conversation. If you refuse to acknowledge that a lengthy discussion about the ways in which your own paper might be improved is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources, and that repeatedly pushing for your own paper despite consensus to the contrary shows a conflict of interest on your part, then I don't think it will be productive for me to continue to debate this with you. —Bkell (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is discussion of http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2010 off-topic as well? Why you did not hide it? "David Eppstein printed one (or more) paper(s) about graph isomorphism and so he has WP:COI and has not WP:NPOV": see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Graph_isomorphism . --Tim32 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. You wrote: "an editor asking for clarification about the complexity of the graph isomorphism problem (for the purposes of the content of the Graph isomorphism article), and providing links to two papers (written by third parties) which claim to give polynomial-time algorithms". For clarification any constructive criticism is quite necessary, it is basic principle of any serious discussion.--Tim32 (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. For example, the statement "David Eppstein printed one (or more) paper(s) about graph isomorphism and so he has WP:COI and has not WP:NPOV" is constructive criticism: David has to take in account WP:COI and WP:NPOV.--Tim32 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Tim32"