Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bensimhoun-1.lemma in Galois Theory-2.RxInterQuotR-3.conjugates of polynomial.pdf
This file is a blatant tentative to use Wikimedia as a publishing media. D.Lazard (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Moreover (The request has been submitted, by mistake, before being complete.), this file is a copyvio, as the license has not be attributed to the author of the article. D.Lazard (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Answer
More detailed reasons of this request by D.Lazard can be found in my talk pages. I reproduce my answer here:
I am shocked by the vehemence of your attack regarding my participation to Wikipedia. I will answer point after point.
- As you said, you have not contented yourself with removing the link from Wikipedia, but also requested to delete the pdf file in wikicommon, alleging that I may not be the owner of the document, and that it may be a violation of the copyright. But you have no right to accuse me of such a violation without solid proofs regarding your allegation. This is pure defamation. I have declared to be the owner of the article, and my declaration is to be trusted, unless you have evidences of the contrary. Beside, there is no relation between the nickname of a person inside an automatized system and the fact that he is or is not the owner of an article.
- Of course, this paper has not been published elsewhere previously, and I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your assertion.
- This is understandable and a good practice in general. But this is not the case here: it is normal, in encyclopedic articles, to synthetize facts and results in order to exhibit other ones, as far as these results are sufficiently elementary to be recognized as true by any person with some acquaintance of the subject. It would be ridiculous to try to publish such an elementary theorem inside a peer reviewed journal: Of course, it would be rejected because of its elementary nature. This is why I posted this document in Wiki commons and linked it to suitable Wikipedia pages, in the case where the readers wish reading a proof. It is true that I have not seen this result anywhere, but I am certain that it must be contained inside some well known theorem, if not a theorem itself; this is why I have not attributed the theorem to myself in the paper, but only "presented" the results.
- Indeed, I am Bensimhoun, and you have no right to emit doubts thereof. Regarding the "conflict of interest", this is at the least completely exaggerated. First of all, I have no personal interest to publish such elementary results, except the satisfaction to participate to the propagation of the knowledge around the world. I believe that the results pointed out inside that (extremely elementary) paper would have interested the readers of the aforementioned Wikipedia pages, and were also very suitable to these pages. Second, I have only introduced very short insertions inside theses pages, often as an example or a single link. To say that there may be a conflict of interest, is, in my opinion, rather ridiculous in this case.
Maimonid (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Additional note to the administrator
This file has been posted here in order to be linked to Wikipedia articles. I did linked it to the page Conjugate element (field theory)), attached to a paragraph I added on the subject inside this page. So, the allegation that I use Wikimedia as a personal publishing device is baseless. The aforementioned link and the improvements of the aforementioned page were savagely deleted. Nevertheless, the file is still currently linked to other Wikipedia pages, apparently without generating any problem. Maimonid (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: As user Maimonid appears to be Bensimhoun himself, it follows that it is not a copyvio, even if it looks like a copyvio. It remains that, being a text file, this file is out of scope, and linking to it from Wikipedia breaks the policy of no original research D.Lazard (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: As far as I know, posting a non image file in Wiki common is not forbidden by any policy (admittedly, I am not an expert of the Wiki policies and I may be wrong, but if this were not the case, it is difficult to understand why Wiki common allows posting files in pdf format). Regarding the assertion of D. Lazard about "original research", I have already pointed out the reasons why this file should not be considered original research, so it is a matter of point of view. Maimonid (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused, out of Scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)