User talk:Mlbphd

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Rome's Revolution, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Andrew327 07:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

So there you are!
Nice article, Michael.

OperaJoeGreen (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, OperaJoe!

Novels
Mr Brachman, regarding your attempts to promote your novel on Wikipedia -- I strongly suggest that you read our guidelines on notability as it applies to books and to academics. You will also benefit from reading our guidelines on conflict of interest.

Regarding your achievements in research, in programming, and in writing instructional material -- although I fully grant that these are genuine, you have not provided any material from secondary sources to demonstrate notability. When writing an article about a person, one must supply not only the facts, but a context in which readers understand why they matter to anyone not directly involved.

I realize that this must be bitterly disappointing, and I apologize; however, please consider what Wikipedia would be like if we did allow hopeful authors to submit articles about their self-published works. DS (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Discoveries
mlbphd here: how has being cited nearly 470 NOT notable? How is discovering that that a Nobel Prize winner Georg von Békésy was wrong to use static stimuli in his work on dead axons and I used dynamic stimuli on living neurons to prove that an individual auditory never fiber had enough response to explain hearing? Do I have to win a Nobel prize first? My work has been the basis of hundreds of articles and lines of research in circadian rhythms, computational models of hair cell transduction, designs of hearing aids, advanced surgical approaches, millions of dollars and grants - ALL VERIFIABLE. Did you even check any of the citations? They cite MY WORK. I feel a wrong has been done here. Forget the novels, what about the science?--Mlbphd (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem, Mr Brachman, isn't that anyone here feels that your work isn't worthwhile but that – as a tertiary source – our contents needs to be cited to secondary sources that are independent from the subject (I am certain you appreciate the importance of peer review as opposed to self-appraisal). What you need, in this case, is citations to what others have written about you.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

mlbphd here - isn't that what the citations in Google Scholar demonstrate or does the copyrighted material within those articles discussing my work need to be abstracted and shown explicitly? Take the Science Article about Limulus circadian rhythms. You are saying that someone has to go through every one of those 160 citations and pull out the paragraph discussing my work and quote it? If not all 160, how many? Many, many of those articles were written by people I have never heard of, let alone know.

Here are two citations for my Science Article which was a breakthrough and revolutionary: Citation 1: Animal sleep: a review of sleep duration across phylogeny SS Campbell, I Tobler - Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 1984 - Elsevier Abstract Sleep duration and placement within the twenty-four hour day have been primary indices utilized in the examination of sleep function. It is of value, therefore, to evaluate these variables in a wide range of animal species. The present paper examines the literature ...

Citation 2: The visual input stage of the mammalian circadian pacemaking system: I. Is there a clock in the mammalian eye? CE Remé, A Wirz-Justice, M Terman - Journal of biological …, 1991 - jbr.sagepub.com Abstract Threads of evidence from recent experimentation in retinal morphology, neurochemistry, electrophysiology, and visual perception point toward rhythmic ocular processes that may be integral components of circadian entrainment in mammals. ...

You are saying someone has to go in and pull out the actual sentences where the Science Article has been cited?

You are saying that citing the citations is insufficient? I look forward to your explanation--Mlbphd (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Mlbphd (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see where the misunderstanding comes from. In order to have an article about yourself, you need to have independent citations about you, and not your work.  For instance, to meet the criteria as an academic, you want to have sources demonstrating that you meet this guideline.  For example, you would automatically qualify if you "[...] received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", which you'd then presumably source to the announcement by the institution granting the award that you were its recipient. All of that said, however, we generally very much discourage people writing about themselves: while it is permissible to do so if you are careful, you will be subjected to considerable scrutiny – it's generally better to let other people write about oneself.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ark Lords
The standards are basically that there should be enough reliable sources about the subject to write a Neutral point of view article about the subject. The worth or otherwise of the subject has no relevance.©Geni 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What is required for an article about a book
Our guidelines are at WP:NBOOK. Summarized:

I hope this helps. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)