User talk:Merkin r

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Edcolins. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Representation before the European Patent Office, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Merkin, thanks for your contributions and your message on my talk page. Your honesty is appreciated. You have used "official EPO data for [your] analysis which makes [your] source reliable." Correct. The official EPO data is reliable. However, "[a]ll interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" (from WP:PRIMARY). The information you added unfortunately does not comply with our policies: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research (see Wikipedia:No original research). The information cannot stay. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Furthermore, whether you have a Ph.D. does not really matter, see Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials. I have fixed the dead links you mentioned. If you come across other dead links, feel free to update them directly, or let me know. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your message on my talk page. By writing there, you can be sure that I will see your message. (By the way, please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Thanks.)
My concern is that your analysis constitutes self-published original research. If somebody else added the same reference, this would essentially not change the matter. It is worth reading Wikipedia:Verifiability, which notably explains what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't (including this guideline: WP:SELFPUBLISH, which is relevant here). If you really want your research to be used within Wikipedia, I think you should first have it published in a reliable source such as a scientific journal (especially a peer reviewed journal). Then, there would be a reliable source based on which the information could be inserted. See also WP:SELFCITE. --Edcolins (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that if you think that my interpretation of our policies is incorrect (I sometimes make mistakes), Wikipedia has a help desk where you can get assistance from other contributors, if necessary. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Merkin: It looks like you've done some interesting work. Have you thought about getting it published? Once it is published by a reliable secondary source with independent editorial control (e.g. IAM magazine), then it becomes a suitable reference for Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Edcolins, thanks Nowa. I appreciate your help. Nevertheless, I think this rule is not really constructive - for several reasons. Official publication doesn't make information better or worse. Original research is worth mentioning when it's worth mentioning. And also selfcitation should be possible, if it's not spam. However, none of us is proabably changing the rules because of my comment. Thanks for your suggestion of IAM magazine. Very interesting site which I didn't know... We'll see if I can get my analysis published there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkin r (talkcontribs)