User talk:Patrick Dehornoy

Your submission at Articles for creation: Artin-Tits groups (July 27)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Artin-Tits groups and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Artin-Tits groups, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Artin-Tits_groups Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Artin-Tits_groups reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Artin–Tits group
 The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Patrick Dehornoy (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Patrick_Dehornoy help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

The new article "Artin-Tits group" is proposed as a merging of the older "Artin group" and "Artin-Tits group". Critics have been carefully taken into account. Is it OK now?

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Patrick Dehornoy. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Dehornoy order and Artin group, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are not absolutes: A professor should not link to his own university's web site when the only purpose of the link is to promote that university, and when linking to that site should use some caution to assure that he's not subconsciously doing that, but if it serves the purpose of improving the article, then it is justifiable. And a similar thing applies to citing one's own publications. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I entirely agree with your remarks, especially the fact that "editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted". But I dont have the feeling that I did so. The article "Dehornoy order" is clearly connected to my own work, but, precisely, the facts that I added to the article mention results obtained by other contributors to the subject, making the paper more balanced. And the article "Artin group" is not essentially connected to my work: here again, I added important results by other contributors (with full references). By the way, I am an old mathematician and I sincerely desire to popularize significant results in maths rather than to promote myself... Please, check the articles, and protest if you see anything that is not conformal to Wikipedia policy. Patrick Dehornoy ( Patrick Dehornoy) 09:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! Perhaps some clarification – my message above was not to accuse you of doing all that was mentioned. It was to inform you of the policies in case you may be unaware, i.e. a friendly notification so there are no accidental inappropriate actions or misunderstandings in the future :) I certainly appreciate your contributions so far and I wholeheartedly share the same goal of making interesting parts of mathematics accessible! Regarding the "Discovery" section of Dehornoy order that you mentioned on my talk page, my challenge was for the lengthy description of the history which is still unreferenced. The source you added only attributes the vague description: the process by which the order was discovered is unusual, but not the information that follows. Plus, the tone is slightly editorial, in the sense that there are subjective adjectives prescribed such as "surprising". The tone issue is very minor, but the historical details need to have citations. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)