User talk:Marek Wolf

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Squid S K (1MC•log) 12:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

--Squid S K (1MC•log) 12:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Gmax.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gmax.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Contributions to Prime number
Your recent contribution to the Wikipedia article Prime number is very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in Prime number? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits this article. Thanks! As you have the same name as the person the conjectures are attributed to, I've removed them until such time as you can provide a published source. In the case of something as notable as Goldbach's conjecture or the twin prime conjecture, references to non-peer-reviewed papers may be included if referenced in an article of general circulation, but, for mathematical articles, we prefer to reference only peer-reviwed articles. I'm not going to quote the precise Wikipedia policies here, as the box above gives adequate reasons, but we prefer to have non-trivial results sourced in peer-reviewed articles. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cramér's conjecture
Hello, Marek Wolf. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Cramér's conjecture, 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.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see 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.

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) 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please join the discussion at Talk:Cramér's conjecture. Deltahedron (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Additional And also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.  The prevailing opinion at Wikipedia is not to cite your own papers directly but to place the proposed material on an article talk page and wait for other editors to comment on its suitability for inclusion.  As it happens I have many of those pages "watched" and would have been willing to consider the content myself.  If you were to attempt to force the material in by adding it, or getting others to add it, repeatedly and without discussion, the mathematics editor community would tend to react rather negatively to that behaviour irrespective of the quality of the content.  I would urge you to join in the discussion and agree to abide by the local customs for adding this content.  Deltahedron (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring at Cramér's conjecture logged in and not logged in and self-promotion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice
If it helps, here's my advice. Post an unblock request, acknowledging that current practice strongly prefers you not to insert references to your own publications and research directly, but by proposing them on an article talk page and letting other editors review them first (I would be happy to do this myself, for example). If you were indeed editing while logged out, then you should acknowledge that's a bad idea and refrain from doing it again. You also need to acknowledge that hastily reverting other editors changes without discussion is also deprecated. It may be a bit unpalatable, but Wikipedia is surprisingly harsh on people, however expert they may be, who refuse to abide by its conventions, which are sometimes unobvious. Deltahedron (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You could also become an administrator and freely add your own publications to articles (User:Smith609) or even become a Wikipedian in Residence to advertise your business with links in articles (user:Johnbod). However, as an academic working on articles in your area of expertise, and as an expert, and as a new editor strictly here for contributing encyclopedic content, you are out of luck. (This last explains the one-sidedness of references already in the articles.) Wikipedia is particluarly harsh on new editors who are not part of the in crowd and don't want to waste time kowtowing to editors who have not a clue about the subjct matter. Like many academics, you may have time to edit content, but you might not want to hang around and discuss it with the Randies from Boise who are here to socialize and climb the corporate ladder rather than create content.

You will never be able to abide by the conventions, they are arbitrarily enforced to keep you off the playground. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC))