User talk:Riemann68

Conflict of interest
Please read Conflict of interest, and note that Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion, or for the promotion of others. Your edit history has consisted entirely in adding unnecessary references to arXiv, preprints etc, authored by one M. V. Cheremisin, and it should be self-evident that this is entirely undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I noticed that AndyTheGrump 24/7 corrects numerous articles related to completely different fields of science. Therefore, I deeply doubt the possibility of deep knowledge behind these edits. Riemann68 (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I make no claim to any great personal knowledge regarding the subject matter. I merely note that you seem to be using Wikipedia in a manner that appears not to be compatible with its purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When making valuable adjustments to the text of an article in Wikipedia, I always mean their significance for both a wide audience and a body of experts. Therefore, I can accept reasonable objections up to the destruction of the made edits only from an expert in the field. You obviously is not a case. Riemann68 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Two simple questions. Are you M. V. Cheremisin? Or are you connected with him in any way? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Dr.,Mr., etc AndyTheGrump,
 * Before a probable answering your questions in my next letter, I kindly ask you to completely introduce yourself.
 * Best regards
 * Wiki User Riemann68 (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump. Wikipedia contributor since 2010. And that is all you need to know, since my editing history does not suggest an obvious conflict of interest. If you have not yet done so, I would again urge you to read the Conflict of interest guideline, and also note that under some circumstances, per the Terms of Use under which editing Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects is permitted, a Paid-contribution disclosure may be required in addition to compliance with the guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My name is Dr. Maxim Cheremisin, PhD since 1999, France. I am the principal investigator in condensed matter physics, electromagnetic theory, hydrodynamics, biology, etc. I create the original scientific content that I hope is valuable to a worldwide Wiki audience.  The present discussion dissuades me from the genuine openness of the Wiki platform for accumulating the fruits of human genius.
 * I posted my first contribution about Lorentz calibration in electromagnetic theory on Wiki in 2018 just for fun. My current conditions are made only to those Wiki articles that relate strictly to my own scientific achievements. I do not expect any profit at all. Riemann68 (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for confirming your identity. I would strongly advise you not to add any further self-citations to articles, and instead use the relevant article talk page to propose any such changes, while at the same time making your identity clear. Wikipedia welcomes input from subject matter experts, but at the same time expects such experts to conform to the same standards as everyone else: which is to edit in the interests of the encyclopaedia, rather than to promote their own work. It is almost always advisable to let others, less immediately involved, judge the appropriateness of content. You might also find it useful to start a thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics concerning the suitability of your work for citation in particular contexts, and get a second opinion there. I'd also recommend reading Reliable sources, where we discuss appropriate sourcing for topics in general, and note that with regard to scientific topics, we tend to discourage the citation of primary-sourced scientific papers that have not been subject to peer review - material from arXiv in particular is generally discouraged - and that as a more general rule we prefer to base generalist scientific articles on sources giving more of an overview of the subject, given our objective of reflecting current scientific consensus. While we can understand the keenness of subject matter experts to publicise their latest research, that isn't Wikipedia's objective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)