Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. It's frustrating when you deal with somebody like Materialscientist, who is deliberately distorting the facts to push his message. Annoying to the highest degree...Aoganov (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. also, i hate to be the bearer of bad news to someone my Chemical senior, but WP isn't the place to right great wrongs. also, please read the no personal attacks policy to help you construct your comments, which appear too focused on the contributor and not the content at times. thanks for being here, i hope you can stick around to improve articles, even ones that don't relate directly to disputes! =) thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute attracted me here. But I'll be happy to contribute to other pages... after the dust settles with this issue.Aoganov (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i understand. uncited, incomplete, poorly sourced, etc. information drew me in initially. also a tip, you can respond to these things by creating

a new indent, as an awkward example, without creating new sections each time. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I learn a lot from you! thanks a lot for free wiki-lessons! I really appreciate this!Aoganov (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no problem! also, there are lots of experienced Chemists on wiki who discuss things here (part of a larger project) and FYI some editors here are skeptical of what look like Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts. I was identified as a SPA when i started here. some would probably argue since i edit so much on fluoroorganics i am still a SPA, who knows. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing about the article Gamma boron discovery controversy. I'm a mathematician myself, not a chemist, and I don't have any side in the dispute. We have certain policies on wikipedia that require good sources for our articles. Some of the claims that were on the "Gamma boron discovery controversy" article were sourced to a google.com site instead of to published journalism or papers. Sites like that cannot be used as sources on wikipedia. I do not know whether the claims made by the google.com site are correct, and I am not saying they are incorrect. But because it is quite easy for anyone to make a web site, we do not allow personal websites as sources as a matter of general principle.

I have asked a chemist on Wikipedia, whom I respect, to look through the recent literature to see if there is anything about the Boron discovery that can be used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Here there are two issues -

(1) plagiarism, which is proven by documents (the google.sites page gives email correspondence, which can be forwarded on request, it is a document)

(2) incorrect chemical arguments of our colleagues - this is something that your colleague could certainly look into.

When we talk about a "discovery controversy", the only documents that can be presented are email exchanges, and we have presented those on google.sites. These are documents that are just as good as written letters.Aoganov (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-edited the Gamma boron discovery controversy page bearing in mind your suggestions. Interested people can obtain all correspondence related to the controversy personally from me. The google.sites page is useful and reports this authentic correspondence. I am happy to forward this correspondence to you or to anyone interested. I did not create the Controversy page, but the page has to contain this information. These are documents central to the controversy here. I'll be happy to take alternative suggestions on how this information can be incorporated. One possibility is that I forward you these email exchanges and you can confirm their authenticity. Aoganov (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued discussion; I am sure we can work out something that both respects your argument and meets Wikipedia's neutrality standards. What would you think if I put a link to your website near the bottom of the article, with the text "A web site by A.R. Oganov and others documenting their side of the controversy"? Then readers could find your arguments from the article, but we would not directly use you as a source in the article.

The broader difficulty is that I, and most other editors here, do not know enough to make any reasoned judgments about the situation. It is simply impossible for us to verify authenticity of documents. This is why we insist on using sources that have been professionally published, because professional publication gives us both an author to cite, and an extra layer of fact-checking that we cannot accomplish ourselves as authors.

There was a similar controversy that came up recently involving the proof of the Poincaré conjecture. One person proved this result, but not in a completely thorough way, and then two research groups vied for the honor of being the first to make the proof rigorous. The dispute was somewhat intense and there were allegations of misconduct from several sides. But we could not take a stand for any side of the dispute on Wikipedia; that is something that the mathematics community must do on its own. The article Manifold_Destiny shows the type of sourced, neutral writing about a scientific controversy that we strive for on Wikipedia. However, that article has the benefit of a thorough writeup of the controversy in the New Yorker and other media.

It may take some time before anyone writed a story about the boron controversy. In the meantime, I hope you can accept an article that is brief and neutrally written, even if that article does not argue your side of the dispute as strongly as you might wish. The article will also not argue the other side of the dispute as strongly and the other side might wish. Until the chemistry community decides about the matter of priority, there is nothing else that can be said on Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the website has authors (on the website you will find them - Oganov, Solozhenko, Gatti, Chen, Kurakevych) and its content is verifiable (see the note that anyone can get these exchanges from me on request). This is not a documentation of "our side" - documents are neutral. I have no problems if the page also includes arguments of the other side (they have no valid arguments), as long as they also guarantee that they will provide all materials on request to anyone. I would prefer if the page is left as it is. BTW, I think we know what really happened with Poincare conjecture. Again, facts and documents are neutral. And objective.Aoganov (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, documents are somewhat neutral, but interpreting them requires experience and context. And authenticating them requires much work. Peronally, I trust you are providing accurate documents, but for the purposes of Wikipedia more than that trust is required. We can say that you are providing the documents, because that does not require Wikipedia to take a stand on the documents' correctness, it only requires us to take a stand that you are providing them, which is clearly true. But we cannot use the google website in the same way that we could use an article from a journalist or journal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. you might have noticed I am making notes at Talk:Gamma boron discovery controversy to document changes to the article, so that everyone can discuss them there. As someone with no stake in the dispute, my only goal here is to keep the standards for neutrality and sourcing high. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I've made a few more edits, to make things more accurate. And added submission dates (in the references, rather than in the text) - these are important, because in science priority is decided on the basis of submission dates.Aoganov (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're still enjoying your experience here thus far. You might find the policies over-restrictive at first, but, for the purposes of writing a encyclopedia, I value them. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely: I enjoy it, and it's hopefully useful. And I really appreciate your help in getting used to the system. Artem R. Oganov Aoganov (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I recently removed your comments on the talk page of Gamma boron discovery controversy because I'm sure they violated some WP policy or at least etiquitte by using a presumed real life name. Hope you understand. I don't know, but it's possible you crossed a line doing that and you could be subject to some sort of disciplinary action like temporary block or ban, I don't know. Just trying to orient you here. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Though I did not give a complete name of that person (only the surname) and anonymity, in my opinion, should be stopped on WP. I have not seen any clear policies forbidding to give real names. If you are sure that this policy exists, it is fine to remove the name of that person. In any case, I see no ground for a special action. If you see something incorrect, just feel free to let me know. Aoganov (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OUTING. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recent talk page edit to Allotropes of boron and I thought I should offer this reminder. Wikipedia operates on a culture of WP:CIVILITY where we are supposed to WP:AGF. Raising questions over the edit history of another user (where allusions to improper motivations are implicit) contradicts assuming good faith, in my opinion. I hope you can adapt here. Take another look at WP:AGF. Thanks. =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Gamma boron discovery controversy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My username (Aoganov) corresponds to my real name (Artem R. Oganov), with which I sign my edits. Within a short time I have made important contributions to WP. Being a professional scientist (and a good one), I can (and plan to) bring latest scientific discoveries to WP-pages, and correct (quite numerous) inaccuracies, currently existing on WP. Since I use my real name, I am directly responsible for my edits and can be contacted directly. I admit that in the beginning, when I lacked experience and did not know that this is a violation of any policies, I opened several accounts. Trying to correct errors, I edited pages related to sensitive/controversial scientific issues (thus, precipitating a conflict with editor NIMSOffice, the same user as Materialscientist, some of whose edits I found incorrect). With time, I learned more of WP policies. I can assure you that in the future I will use only one account for editing WP. You can already see that since opening of the account “Aoganov” I made no anonymous edits. I hope that my account will be unblocked.

Thehelpfulone - Is an indefinite block really required in this particular situation? Aoganov has violated in a short time at least a couple important policies but I do believe that he is learning and has a good chance of eventually becoming a productive member of the community. But there is the hot button issue of gamma boron. I suggest a compromise: keep the block in effect for a week and then probation in the form of a indefinite topic ban on his editing of boron-related topics. This will give him an opportunity to prove he can be a nondistruptive editor by contributing to other articles. If that can be proven, then we can talk about lifting the topic ban. Any edits to boron-related topics or other disruption (such as sockpuppetry) in the probation period would result in immediate indef reblock. If you agree, I'd like to take this to WP:AN to see if consensus can be reached and the plan enacted. mav (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggested compromise Mav (the topic ban and disruption in probation period included), perhaps this user will turn out to be a good user for the wiki, please feel free to take it up to WP:AN and post me message on my talk page once done, so that I can comment. Thanks, The Helpful One 10:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aoganov - please tell us if the above terms are acceptable, at least as a starting point. With time a good edit history will be developed and the topic ban lifted. I won't proceed with the procedure to lift the block until I hear from you. --mav (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - it is acceptable, and I really appreciate your involvement. How long will the topic ban last? Would it be possible to have an identical topic ban on NIMSOffice (now called Materialscientist)? This would be logical fair and will prevent future edit wars, hopefully even after the ban is lifted, and allow me to contribute to other topics without being constantly distracted by someone's agenda. Aoganov (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Process now started. The length of the ban will be up to you: a combination of time, good edits and lack of disruption will be considered. Materialscientist is not under any sanction so admins can't impose any conditions. But Materialscientist has indicated a desire to avoid future conflict. We can build on that. Also, topic bans by default do not extend to talk pages. So you still will be able to comment on boron related talk pages so long as it is not disruptive once the block is lifted. --mav (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Artem R. Oganov

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Provisional unblock and indefinite topic ban on boron-related articles per consensus reached at WP:AN. Violations of Wikipedia Policies or guidelines, especially policies relating to sockpuppetry, outing, and guidelines about conflict of interest and disruptive editing may, depending on severity, result in reimplementation of the block by any administrator. Any edits to boron-related articles before topic ban is lifted will result in automatic re-implementation of the block. Suspected use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets displaying similar editing behavior in boron-related articles will be promptly investigated. Any affirmative findings of such an investigation will result in re-implementation of the block. Instances of outing the identity of another user against that user's wishes will result in re-implementation of the block. Topic ban extends to article space only but edits to all talk pages must be civil and non-disruptive. The duration of the topic ban is indefinite and lifting of the ban is subject to a new consensus at WP:AN per accumulated evidence of non-disruptive editing during the ban period. Request handled by: mav (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.