Akramarz
Managing a conflict of interest edit
Hello, Akramarz. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
- avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
- instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
- when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Response to MrOllie's delete edit
Dear MrOllie, Thank you for your notification. I am puzzled about your reverting my edits on the two pages on Greek music. Both edits seem to have complied with the standards laid out on the COI page: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_yourself). Rather than a COI strictly speaking, part of both edits was self-citing, and it was in a moderate way with a simple reference in both cases (one was just a bibliographic reference). I would request that you kindly restore both edits. Akramarz (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Akramarz
Akramarz, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Akramarz! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
Superconductivity edit
Does that graphene edit belong in the high-temperature superconductivity section? According to the paper, the superconductivity is observed at 0.3 K. Also, please note WP:DECIMAL, in Wikipedia, the decimal point is always a period, never a comma. Please revise your edit. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
RESPONSE: Thank you for your observation and inquiry. I corrected the comma to a period - this came about because I posted similar information on the German wiki page... About the High-temperature issue: the paper writes this: "Through its easy gate tunability, MA-TBG could thus provide a novel playground for studying the transition between a correlated metal and an interaction-driven insulating state, which may provide insight into strongly-correlated materials, notably high-temperature superconductivity." (on p. 3). Even if the experiment itself was not high-temperature, it is a contribution to high-temperature superconductivity research. I added a corresponding sentence, which hopefully addresses this question satisfactorily. Of course, one could always consider moving the addition to the end of the history part. Let me know if you still think that this would be better, in which case the last sentence could be taken out again. Thanks! Akramarz (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)