User talk:Mollinair

Welcome!

Hello, Mollinair, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! --Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter: thank you for monitoring the correctness of certain pages. However, in this particular case you might not be right. You can check the number of publications on the MathSciNet. This was actually done by Mr Simkin, see a summary his observations in http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/1393253/Berezovsky-number.html Of course, MathSciNet does not list half-page conference papers, which actually no one in the scientific world views as "publication" to which a scholar may refer, as the latter are normally surveys or research announcements.

It was plainly impossible to become Dr. Sci in Moscow in applied math in the 1970s with 16 publications. Since the source says more than 100, I do not see any reason to change this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter: Unfortunately, you are deeply mistaken. Firstly, that was Dr. Eng. (techn. nauk) where the main requirement was spravka o vnedrenii and having one monograph published was actually enough. That particular nauchnyi sovet in the Inst Contr Sci had not even the right to award Dr Fizmat Nauk. The only council which in the Institute could was akin to "Control in Nonlinear Systems", which had nothing to do with the subject of the thesis. Secondly, the thesis was DSP (dlja sluzh pols), so not everyone was admitted to the defence, and even "autoreferat" was not made publicly available. Otherwise the publ list could be easily recovered.

Thirdly, the publ. list was about 40 items of which 2/3 local or perhaps All-Union conference abstracts on toilet paper, or so-called `deposited papers' which were never peer-reviewed. Forthly, if you trace back the "source" you perhaps find out the origin of the impressive figure, although I believe you have now a good guess what the source was. Fifthly, who told you of the background in math or applied math?

Last but not least the time of defence: 1983 not 70s Russian Wiki is correct in this respect: В 1983 .... защитил докторскую диссертацию «Разработка теоретических основ алгоритмизации принятия предпроектных решений и их применения» по специальности «Техническая кибернетика и теория информации».

In any case, I will be much obliged if you could show me 20. I have some arguments for `at most 40', but first would be much obliged to see yours.

I see now that the number of publications in the article is essentially unsourced (it was sourced to Prilepin's book). I removed the reference and added the uncited template. What you give above can not be added as a reference since it is not a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mollinair, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mollinair! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]