User talk:Sandluci.nith

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should take a look at Reliable Source policy. For most purposes we want to cite independent publications with reputable editorial oversight, mainly books news and magazines (including web versions with comparable editorial oversight).

The book Unit operation of chemical engineering looks to be an excellent source.
The refs to theinfolist.com were the biggest problem - they use software to scrape random information off the web - in particular it takes information from Wikipedia. We seriously can't cite those kinds of websites because it can create a problem of circular sourcing. If something faulty or even fictional gets posted on Wikipedia, and gets copied to theinfolist.com, then we obviously can't use theinfolist to verify the information as reliable. Unsourced information is actually somewhat better than a bad source because the bad ref make the information look like it's been properly supported.
You cited two companies. (I suspect this is what particularly caught Materialscientist's eye.) In general we don't trust what companies say, except for basic factual information about themselves. Looking closely I see that you cited one company for info on the drawbacks of hammer mills, and cited the other company for pre-existing article text on non-controversial basic mechanical operation. The companies may arguably qualify as adequately reliable sources for that sort of information, but a lot of editors will still look unfavorably on it. It would be good if you could find an independent source.
pharmainfo.net is an odd case. I don't know much about it, but based on browsing the site it is unclear whether it would be considered a reliable source. You may be better off finding a more conventional source for the info.

Overall it looks like maybe everything you had added to the article could be re-added, if you find better sourcing for it. Alsee (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Oil field development

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Oil field development requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b10486-2. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]