User talk:S. Kitaev

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Word-representable graphs


A tag has been placed on Draft:Word-representable graphs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-62809-7. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa, I'm new on Wiki, and it's my very first page. I'm not even sure I should respond on the issues you've raised in the way I'm doing it. I hope the message will reach you. The content of the page is the result of my own work over the past 15 years, so I was behind essentially all sentences used in the text. However, I've got your point on copyright issues, and I will try to reword parts of the text that look too similar to the original sources. Having said that, bear in mind that I cannot do anything about things like references, which also seem to be detected by the software as being too similar to the original sources. Also, some research results I will be staying will like look similar to the original sources by natural reasons (I will be presenting maths results). In any case, I wonder if you could remove my page from "Speedy Deletion nomination" as I don't like the idea of investing lots of time in an important article and being under pressure that it can disappear any time. I've already done some rewording, and will do more just now, so hopefully the similarity detection software will produce better results. Thanks! S. Kitaev (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but we need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders (not just yourself, but all the authors of the paper) have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. In the meantime if you wish to continue to work on the draft, please do so offline in a text editor. We can't host copyright material, not even temporarily for editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see, it's too much hassle to go for it then. I should have realised it earlier. Where can I find the page I've created so far so that I could continue developing it elsewhere (not on Wiki platform). If you would make it available for me just now for 5 minutes I could copy it to my laptop. Thanks. S. Kitaev (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have sent you a copy via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Before I completely gave up this idea, can I ask you the following. If I would simply write the first Paragraph from what I've head, namely "In graph theory, a graph G=(V,E) is word-representable iff there exists a word w over the alphabet V such that letters a and b alternate in w if and only if the edge ab is in E. Letters a and b alternate in w if after deleting in w all letters but the copies of a and b we either obtain a word abab... (of even or odd length) or a word baba... (of even or odd length). In this context, we say that W|w is G 's word-representant, or that w represents G. The definition of a word-representable graph works both in labelled and unlabelled cases since any labelling of a graph is equivalent to any other labelling. Also, the class of word-representable graphs is hereditary. Word-representable graphs generalise several important classes of graphs such as circle graphs, 3-colorable graphs and comparability graphs. Various generalisations of the theory of word-representable graphs accommodate representation of any graph. For example, the cycle graph labeled by 1, 2, 3 and 4 in clock-wise direction is word-representable because it can be represented by 43142132. The smallest (by the number of  vertices) non-word-representable graph is the wheel graph W5, which is the only non-word-representable graph on 6 vertices." and then list all the papers available on the subject without saying anything what is in there, would this have any copyrights issues? If you believe it would, how about still having the first paragraph as above, but having the only reference to my own paper (with no co-authors), this surely should be OK, right? I would then go for providing little material rather than no material. Thanks! S. Kitaev (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess my point is that everything what I would say then would be public information - names of papers and authors, and also a few words about the subject that are available freely at other sources online. Or mentioning particular people's names is still not OK? S. Kitaev (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Last message for now (promise!). Just convinced myself that what I'm saying makes sense. I looked at a webpage of my other area of expertise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_pattern and there my paper appears as a reference, and the main result in there is mentioned, while no one was asking for my permission. So, I guess this should be OK to list all papers I intended to mention? And indeed, maybe it's OK to talk about results in there as the papers are all available in public domains like arXiv! Are you sure the strict rules are applied to my case as I'm not revealing something that cannot be found elsewhere in the internet? S. Kitaev (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't post material here that's been previously published somewhere else, even if you are the sole author, without following the procedure at WP:Donating copyright materials. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I've just sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I hope the wording is OK there, if not, maybe you could advise me how to say it in a better way so that I could continue working on the page. Also, I'm inserting the required

Please let me know what else I should do. Thanks again for your help! S. Kitaev (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've got a message to my email address that you've sent a message to me, but I cannot find it! Could you please resend it? Or respond directly to my email. Thanks. S. Kitaev (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, could you please confirm that you, or someone else will eventually look at my case eventually, or if you're waiting for some actions from me?! S. Kitaev (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry you didn't get my email. I see you've re-added the draft. I've added the "OTRS Pending" template to the talk page. Please be patient; they have a six-week backlog of cases at present. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you S. Kitaev (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Word-representable graphs


Hello, S. Kitaev. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Word-representable graphs".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for your message. I've tried to request undeletion of the page, but am not sure if I've done a proper sequence of steps. I am new on Wiki, and to be honest I'm rather confused with the process. When I was creating my page half a year ago or so, I have had a long discussion with another editor. I was trying to create a page of interest to many scientists. At some point, I saw the page appearing here https://en.everybodywiki.com/Word-representable_graphs and I thought that this is a temporary thing, so that the page will eventually appear on wiki automatically after some time, not being permanently at everybodywiki. Also, I have plans to update the page in the next month or so. However, instead I've got a message from you saying that the page will be deleted. Could you please explain me in simple terms relations between wiki and everybodywiki? E.g., if the page is eligible for wiki (and will be published there), will it disappear from everybodywiki? Once the paper will be undeleted, I will try to edit it as soon as possible. S. Kitaev


 * Hi S. Kitaev, I realize this comment is several months old, but since you never received a response: everybodywiki is a "mirror" of Wikipedia -- you can see Mirrors and forks for more information.  In other words, everybodywiki copies content from Wikipedia, but otherwise there is no connection between the two. --JBL (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Word-representable graph moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Word-representable graph, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

Before doing so, you should ensure that you comply with our conflict of interest guidelines and fully declare your connection to the subject. I have also removed some content sourced to predatory open access journals. Guy (help!) 09:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Guy, to be honest with you I was really disappointed by the fact that my article was moved to the Draftspace, as I've announced its appearance to 50+ researchers around the globe and already got feedback from some of them that they found the article timely and useful. I'm new on Wikipedia, and I admit that I may not understand truly how it is functioning, but it feels like some statements in the "Multiple issues" associated with the article are incorrect. To start with, the article does not contain any pieces of original research, only references to existing results. Second, regarding "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.", every single statement made in the article has a link associated with it to a publication in a Peer Reviewed International Journal, so no better "verification" of the claims can be thought of, and there should not be any issues with neutrality as the article presents scientific facts. Am I right in assuming that the following sentence "Sergey Kitaev introduced the theory of word-representable graphs in 2004 based on joint research with Steven Seif on the Perkins semigroup, which has played an important role in semigroup theory since 1960." is the only reason the article was removed to the Draftspace? This claim is actually present in the book "Words and Graphs" published by Springer where I'm an author collaborating with another British Scientist (by the way, I'm a British academic), and it is reiterated in some of the peer-reviewed published papers. What would be ways around to make things work from your prospective? Would some sort of endorsement from some of my colleagues work for you? If so, please let me know how this could be arranged. If you see that I absolutely cannot write things like that about myself, I will consider removing the sentence, or at least rewriting it to remove my name from there. It's hard to explain the important of the page to me personally, and for dozens of other researchers around the globe actively involved in the research in article's direction, so please help me out to publish the page as soon as possible, and in case something needs to be changed in it, please provide constructive comments on what these things would be. Once again, everything presented in the article is verifiable, perhaps apart from the sentence I've mentioned above, though I could give you contacts of respectable academics, who would confirm the claim. Thanks, Sergey S. Kitaev


 * Dear Dr. Kitaev. There is also a discussion of this article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. Basically the concern is that the article may be a "vanity spam" (it’s not of course, but that’s the concern). One solution might be to ask some other worker in the field to write the article (which can be based on the draft article prepared by you). That will address the conflict-of-interest issue, which Wikipedia takes seriously. —- Taku (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Word-representable graph for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Word-representable graph is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Word-representable graph until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (help!) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. I've just left there my comments. S. Kitaev (talk)

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


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * 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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Guy (help!) 09:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)