User talk:Shepelyansky

Welcome!

Hello, Shepelyansky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as CheiRank, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! X7q (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of CheiRank[edit]

The article CheiRank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. The only reliable sources about the subject seem to be preprints by Shepelyansky D.L. and its coauthors.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. X7q (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing references[edit]

There is a serious problem with your way of citing references in the article titled Google matrix. You numbered them by hand rather than letting the software do the numbering. Consequently if someone later wants to add a reference between the ones you've numbered 8 and 9, then they have to change all of the numbers that come after 8, and they have to go through the article and change numbers in every place where they appear, by hand.

Please look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Googlematrixcambridge2006.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Googlematrixcambridge2006.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Googlematrixwikipedia2009.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Googlematrixwikipedia2009.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Googlematrixwikipedia2009.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Googlematrixwikipedia2009.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:CheiRank6.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:CheiRank4.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:CheiRank5.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Top 100 historical figures may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Later studies analyzed English Wikipedia edition Aug 2009 using [[RageRank[, [[CheiRank]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On technical content and potential conflicts of interest[edit]

Greetings Dr. Shepelyansky,

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia articles. An expert's involvement is often useful for maintaining accuracy and comprehensiveness. However, please note that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not an academic one, and effort should be made to summarize key findings and technical content, rather than rehash or resemble the methods section of academic papers using technical jargon, as appears to be the case in articles like Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia and especially CheiRank, both subjects on which you have published.

You may find helpful tips in in What Wikipedia is Not, which documents a Wikipedia policy. Per WP:NOTJOURNAL: Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Furthermore: A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

Additional guidelines for making technical material more accessible are found in Make Technical Articles Understandable. To laypersons, an unintelligible article may be no better than a non-existent article, and specialists in the field are unlikely to be relying on Wikipedia for professional-level coverage. Also, be aware of WP:Conflict of Interest, and strive to make sure you due not unduly promote or emphasize your own research or any subjects you have a close connection to.

I do not in any way intend to dissuade you from contributing, nor do I believe anything you have contributed represents obvious Conflicts of Interest, but rather encourage you to consider the audience and readership of Wikipedia, and suggest effort be made to present information clearly and non-technically (even if this means omitting information), and most importantly, in an unbiased way. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]