User talk:Davy2016

Davy2016, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Davy2016! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Particle teleportation (July 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Particle teleportation instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Davy2016/Particle teleportation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Particle teleportation for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Particle teleportation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle teleportation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Particle teleportation (July 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The "lecture" style of the text is not appropriate. Phrases such as "we see that", "in our world", "here is" should be avoided. "Here is an explanation" is redundant - just give the explanation directly without "announcing" it. Write strictly in the third person, never address or instruct the reader.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Particle teleportation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Superconductivity, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tarl According your opinion, I read the definition of original researcher (i.e. A,B->C) and reliable source. I feel that my article or section is not original research and is based on reliable source. Can you tell me in detail? Davy2016 (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I read from you was either WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. The article is intended to to provide users with a general understanding of the subject. In the case of scientific articles, theories from or showing the current consensus. A fringe theory (which would certainly describe what you wrote, note "revolutionary", "comment by Wei", "brand-new viewpoint yet to be verified"), doesn't belong. See also WP:PEACOCK. At best, if there is a consensus that this unproven theory is significant (which would surprise me, I haven't noticed any reverberations in the scientific press about it), it would deserve a mention indicating why it is considered significant (and a citation stating why it's considered significant). Keep in mind, the article's goal is to provide a reader an understanding of the subject.

Also keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS - Wikipedia isn't the place to announce things. We report what others have written, see WP:TERTIARY . Generally, we report based on secondary sources, which makes us a tertiary source. Your first source, Wei's article, is a primary source. Your second source, Superconductor Week, is indeed a secondary source - but I'm dubious about how reliable it is. See WP:RS. I'm not sure how reliable a source a hugely expensive weekly trade publication is, I certainly haven't seen discussion of this new theory elsewhere. Note that we don't need to report theories as soon as they are proposed. This isn't arXiv , this is an encyclopedia which provides a general understanding. Until consensus in the field shifts to include this "brand new", "revolutionary", "yet to be verified" theory, it doesn't belong. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 01:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention my decisions aren't authoritative. If you disagree with me, the place to take it to is the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. You were bold, you were reverted, now it's time to discuss with others interested in the article. Create a section in the talk page, and see what others have to say. At this point, the discussion has been between the two of us, although probably being observed by other readers without comment. I will note I received thanks from another reader for reverting your changes, so this didn't pass entirely unnoticed. Regards , Tarl N. (discuss) 01:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarl, thanks. You taught me a lot. You are right and Professional. I agree on every word with you Davy2016 (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi Davy2016: Welcome to Wikipedia. You have jumped right in and will see a lot of editing of your efforts. It takes a while to learn about this business. My main advice - find a general topic that is on an elementary subject and try to improve it by relying on textbook information. Stay away from recent literature until you have more experience.

Here is the deal. 69034 articles, patents, etc have been published on the topic of superconductivity, 14031 in the past five years alone. So one can see that it would be impossible to describe even 0.1% of these in Wikipedia. So we do not even try. In fact we attempt to keep specialized references out - because Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA - it is very general and has zero aspiration to serve as a holding spot for all technical reports. Many books and review journals exist for that purpose. To this end, we follow the guideline WP:SECONDARY. We try to cite mainly secondary references (reviews and books). And for a topic as big as superconductivity, it is necessary to be very selective about which of these general sources we cite. It's a major challenge, and all new editors have problems appreciating the scope and extent of the published literature. The problems become even worse because many new editors are trying to push for the addition of papers that they or their friends have published. We call this WP:COI.

Feel free to ask questions and good luck. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Your words are very understandable and acceptable. Davy2016 (talk)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Particle teleportation (August 20)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Too soon. An article based on a 'comment' paper by a single author just doesn't cut it. Need to wait for a at least a few more peer reviewed papers.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Particle teleportation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 05:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Davy2016/Particle teleportation[edit]

Hello, Davy2016. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Particle teleportation".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 05:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Particle teleportation[edit]

Hello, Davy2016. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Particle teleportation".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 17:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]