User talk:Moscole

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moscole (November 5)[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 KylieTastic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Moscole! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moscole (November 5)[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 Taking Out The Trash was:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
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 after they have been resolved.
Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Moscole. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Moscole, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

discussion from the help desk[edit]

Comments get removed after about 3 days on the help desk. I moved this here to preserve it and to de-clutter the help desk. -Arch dude (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add some content regarding a new molecule which has been published in Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A. Moscole (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post a link to the specific edition of the journal in question? Remsense聊 14:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A new molecule has been added to the literature by the name Moscole. The work is published in Russina Journal of Physical Chemistry A. The link of the article is https://doi.org/10.1134/S0036024423110134 Moscole (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscole I would question whether this would actually be a notable compound and worthy at this point in time of being an article on Wikipedia right now. I can't see the full article, but it is described as "Hypothetical Molecule Moscole". I don't deal with technical chemistry articles, but I would want to wait until other sources have written about this hypothetical molecule, or it has been formally recognised by some international chemical body or other, and not just have a theoretical paper published about it. You could seek further notability advice on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Chemicals.
Are you connected with its hypothetical discovery? If so, you have a strong Conflict of Interest and would have to declare that connection if you were to try to write an article about it. Full details how to do this are at WP:COI.
BTW: It's not particularly helpful to choose a username which is the same as the topic you want to write about, and it does suggest strong bias towards wanting to publish newly-discovered theoretical stuff here. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am one of the authors of the article. I did not know about the COI existed for this also. I will do whatever i am supposed to do as co-author. Moscole (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] You are welcome to do so, but writing a new article from scratch is quite difficult because of Wikipedia's extensive policies and guidelines, particularly regarding the requirements for citation of Reliable sources for everything written.
As your account is evidently new, someone will shortly, I expect, add some advice and links to your personal User Talk page. For now, you might want to study WP:Golden Rule and Help:Your first article, and then embark on a Draft, which you can work on, and ask for assistance with, before eventually submitting it for approval.
Good luck and happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.2.5.208 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the OP has immediately rushed off with no experience of editing Wikipedia and our Notability Guidelines and tried to create a new article at WP:AFC (see Draft:Moscole), which inevitably has been rejected. My earlier comments still stand. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentazine Pentazine is an hypothetical molecule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexazine Hexazine is a hypothetical molecule
These are also hypothetical molecules, then how did they find entry into wikipeida. what I have suggested "Moscole" is also hypothetical. Hence please consider it to be uploaded to wikipedia. Moscole (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscole We have a whole category of articles about hypothetical compounds Since moscovium's half-life is 0.65 seconds, it will be difficult for anyone to make a sample of moscole and as such it seems unlikely it could ever reach Wikipedia's threshold of independent notability. There may be a case for adding moscole to the article on moscovium if there is anything worthwhile that can be said about it other than that it is an obvious extension from pyrrole, phosphole etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moscovium is the heaviest element that has known isotopes that are long-lived enough for chemical experimentation Reference: Moody, Ken (2013-11-30). "Synthesis of Superheavy Elements". In Schädel, Matthias; Shaughnessy, Dawn (eds.). The Chemistry of Superheavy Elements (2nd ed.). Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 24–8. ISBN 9783642374661..
There are some chemical compounds of Moscovium which are discussed in Wikipedia of Moscovium element https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium I have copied for your perusal.
The chemistry of moscovium in aqueous solution should essentially be that of the Mc+ and Mc3+ ions. The former should be easily hydrolyzed and not be easily complexed with halides, cyanide, and ammonia. Moscovium(I) hydroxide (McOH), carbonate (Mc2CO3), oxalate (Mc2C2O4), and fluoride (McF) should be soluble in water; the sulfide (Mc2S) should be insoluble; and the chloride (McCl), bromide (McBr), iodide (McI), and thiocyanate (McSCN) should be only slightly soluble, so that adding excess hydrochloric acid would not noticeably affect the solubility of moscovium(I) chloride. Mc3+ should be about as stable as Tl3+ and hence should also be an important part of moscovium chemistry, although its closest homolog among the elements should be its lighter congener Bi3+. Moscovium(III) fluoride (McF3) and thiozonide (McS3) should be insoluble in water, similar to the corresponding bismuth compounds, while moscovium(III) chloride (McCl3), bromide (McBr3), and iodide (McI3) should be readily soluble and easily hydrolyzed to form oxyhalides such as McOCl and McOBr, again analogous to bismuth. Both moscovium(I) and moscovium(III) should be common oxidation states and their relative stability should depend greatly on what they are complexed with and the likelihood of hydrolysis
WITH THE BACKDROP OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, MY CONTENTION IS, WHY SHOUDN'T MOSCOLE BE ADDED TO WIKIPEDIA??? Moscole (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have also predicted the pKa of this compound. Moscole (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscole Briefly, because the Chemical Abstracts database has about 130 million entries and Wikipedia must limit itself to those which are notable, or it would be swamped. See relevant parts of WP:NOT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A new molecule has been proposed and it has been published in a 90 year old Russian journal of Physical Chemistry A. This journal is Science Citation Indexed (SCI) journal and 90 years old. A novel molecule in SCI indexed journal deserves entry in wikipedia. Further we have also predicted the pKa of this molecule. Also please note that Mc5- work has also been reported DOI: 10.1002/jcc.25170 This is to reflect appreciable (though not much) work related to Moscovium has been reported. There is no reason why this should not be uploaded to wikipedia. Moscole (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Moscole: Is the molecule notable by our definition? a single article in a single journal is not enough by itself to establish notability, and the discovery announcement/article is not independent of the subject. You need two or more articles, preferably in the general press, that are independent of the subject. On a possibly related note: your username suggests you may be associated with this discovery. If so, please declare your association. See WP:COI, and check out WP:PAID to see if it applies also. Even if these do not apply, it would be courteous to describe your interest in this article on your user page to avoid other editors jumping to the conclusion that you have a COI. There is nothing wrong with having a COI as long as you declare it. -Arch dude (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am one of the authors of the discovery announcement. We have predicted the Pka of this compound. Moscole (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our discovery of possible existence of Moscole, has been reviewed and published in Russian journal of Physical Chemistry A. This journal is a Science Citation Indexed Journal and 90 years old. Since we are the first ones to predict its existence, it deserves to be uploaded on wikipedia. After it is uploaded, if anyone writes an article on Moscole, again it can updated. Moscole (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscole: The only absolute requirement for a Wikipedia article is that the subject is notable by our (reasonably objective) definition. If it does not meet this definition, it cannot have an article, no matter how "deserving" it is by any other definition. A single paper in a single journal does not establish notability. Sorry. -Arch dude (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentazine has only one journal as reference, the other one is book. How did it find its entry into wikipedia? Please justify Moscole (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscole:See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you wish to have that article removed, proceed to WP:AFD. -Arch dude (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be removed? A molecule (hypothetical/theoretical) if predicted for first time in any Science Citation Indexed journal, deserves further recognition. It has been peer reviewed in SCI journal. Getting anything published in SCI journal always reflects it deserves recognition and entry into wikipedia. If one does not trust the reliability of SCI journal, the sanctity of SCI indexed journals is lost. Moscole (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscole: You are arguing for a change in the notability definition. The notability definition is now about 18 years old and is a basic part of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not recognize "sanctity of SCI indexed journals" as part of the definition of notability. The help desk is not the correct place for this discussion. Please take it to Wikipedia talk:Notability or another suitable location. -Arch dude (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hypothetical_chemical_compounds What about these, does each of the hypothetical molecule have multiple references Moscole (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscole: again, please carefully read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are all volunteers, and nobody assigns any of us the task of patrolling hypothetical chemical compounds. If you feel the urge to do so, please feel free, but I suggest you work with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. -Arch dude (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscole I think you meant Category:Hypothetical chemical compounds, where the majority of articles do, indeed, appear to have two or more references. I don't understand your rush to come to Wikipedia to promote your discovery. Maybe it is WP:TOOSOON; as you say, "The study of the molecule is still at its infancy stage.".
Please don't forget to follow the instructions at WP:COI, if you're going to continue pushing this here. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry It clearly says:
When new information is added, try to find at least one reference of where you got it from.
When you're adding new information...
Make sure it's not already in the article or Wikipedia.
Make sure that you verify it yourself with at least ONE other source before adding. (This is CONTRADICTING the first one)
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article
This is the first time I have opened my account in Wikipedia. There are many things , I need to understand; But yes, I am one of the co-authors of this article, and I am not promoting myself, I am trying to upload a novel hypothetical molecule. 183.83.228.211 (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not contradictory. To add any information to an existing article, you must cite a source. This added information does not need to be notable, just relevant to the article. However, to create a new article, you must show notability of the subject. This requires multiple independent reliable sources. Not just one source, and not just any reliable source. Different problems (verifiability versus notability) requiring different levels of sourcing. -Arch dude (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arch dude (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Moscole[edit]

Information icon Hello, Moscole. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Moscole, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Moscole[edit]

Hello, Moscole. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Moscole".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! ji11720 (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moscole&oldid=1222433949"