User talk:Typhon Antaeus
Welcome
[edit]
|
| This is Typhon Antaeus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 22)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Typhon Antaeus/sandbox 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.
|
Hello! Typhon Antaeus,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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) 21:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Hy, I am the founder of Aristos power and the chief designer of the HSR, I hope we agree that it doesnt get more reliable as a source. I have added external links to the company pages, hope this helps. Cheers
Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 23)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Typhon Antaeus/sandbox 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.
The article I wrote is not about a new theory or about a device employing the physics like the EM drive, this is about a reactor design repackaging a collection of known technologies which have been either in use or talked about largely on the nuclear scene for the last decades, it has nothing controversial ,like the EM drive, which would warrant careful examination. I cannot think of a single physics journal which would even discuss a new reactor design, unless we are still living in the 50 and 60 when nuclear tech was something new, , it is simply not in their scope anymore. Plus Wikipedia has a plethora of articles regarding other related reactor designs, like the IMSR, like the Thorcon, like the Stable Salt Reactor, and they do have pages, The reactor design I propose and these other reactors have many points in common, but there are also inherent differences from seeing things from different perspectives and priorities, like some designs prioritizing the burn of transuranics while others prioritizing low maintenance or low upfront costs , just an example. BUT all of them are based on the same physics principals, I do not understand why my particular design has to prove something which has been proven for the last 50 years or so. I respectfully request your reexamination of the logic behind the decision that you need more physics and engineering reports as a cause for this rejection. Thank you. Typhon Antaeus (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Typhon Antaeus, Wikipedia has a number of policies that you need to be aware of. Firstly "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" (see WP:42) so adding the company web page, FB and Linked-In fails to show Notability as they are neither reliable sources or independent. Secondly Wikipedia is not for organisations or people to publish about themselves as Wikipedia is not a web host (WP:NOTWEBHOST) or for promotion (WP:NOTPROMOTION) - see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for for full list of what we are not. Finally as you state that you are the "founder of the company" then the policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applies... in summary, editing with a COI is strongly discouraged and highly scrutinised. Hope that explains things, Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, I want to make a few clarifications first because I believe some wrong assumptions were made. My submission is NOT about the company, is about a reactor design that is being under development, as you already know the first submitted version didnt have any links to the company whatsoever , and there was only one mention of it in a one liner . The only reason that I later added links to the company was because the first refusal mentioned there were no references. I also took a peak at how other paper reactor designs were being presented on wikipedia ( that is reactors that were never built yet, we call them paper reactors in the industry, but which are being proposed by different companies, and lately by a lot of startups ), and all of their pages did have mentioned in the articles the company which is developing each of the designs, Further more, some of these articles had entire sections of the article dedicated to the parent company, if you wish I can provide links to prove my claims. So I considered that it is a normal thing to do, as others have done it too, in my case I didnt dwell to much on it, just a simple phrase about who is developing it, without saying anything else. So you see you can hardly catalog this as , and I quote you. """Wikipedia is not for organisations or people to publish about themselves as Wikipedia is not a web host (WP:NOTWEBHOST) or for promotion""" . As I stated already this is a page intended to make it easy to anyone to find a little information about a new reactor design being proposed, it is not a personal page , it is not a company promoting page. I just wish there is no double standard applied when a much younger design is not allowed to have a proper wiki page while other designs, barely a few years older do have this right and further more the said pages include a lot more information on the companies that develop these designs, again, I can provide links to such pages if you wish me to.
As to me being the chief designer of the HSR, if there were a third party involved, aka publishing a wiki page on the HSR design, there is a high risk of things being poorly or inaccurately presented and as such would warrant an intervention, either by me or one of my colleagues because, simply put, there are no others who would now the design into more detail than us, and I was under the impression that wikipedia was striding to have articles with information presented as accurately as possible.
Thank you for your time, I much appreciate your insight and I hope we can reach a conclusion which will be mutually acceptable. Typhon Antaeus (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)