User talk:Nick-Stannum

Welcome!

Hello, Nitin-Nitin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Baghdad Battery‎. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! McGeddon (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dammitkevin, it's going to take a bit more spamming than this to get someone blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Wikipedia doesn't care about self-promotion via reference spamming? He's been doing it since November and that is all his edits have consisted of. Dammitkevin (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what qualifies content in wikipedia? I have never added anything that is not true!

Wikipedia should be a source of information and knowledge and this is really troubling that I can't add legitimate content!

I didn't see any Adam Cohn in the Baghdad articles. I see him here, for instance--but he's adding content as well as a reference. If the content is good and the reference is valid, I'm not going to block someone. And before I start slapping warnings on their talk page, I'd talk to them first. A self-citation isn't automatically promotional or invalid, though, Nick-Stannum, your possible COI should be noted. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: He is the sixth author in the reference in this edit. In the citation template "last6=Cohn|first6=Adam P." Dammitkevin (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that wasn't in the last version of the edit, was it? Either way, there is a via media here. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:Yes it was check the article itself. Nick-Stannum simply removed that part of the edit when restoring it as if he was no longer promoting Cohn even though the text and link were otherwise identical. Dammitkevin (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So that means if someone wants to add content to wikipedia: a) he/She must not be a part of that content b) he/she must not add papers which they were part of which were peer reviewed in high impact journals which provide true advancements Not one edit I added was untrue and this is terribly discomforting.

This is outlined at WP:COI information which was available in one of the many warnings you deleted. Dammitkevin (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nick, that is not what that means. Read the policy please. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@Drmies: If I write about something that I worked on, even after it has been accepted in high impact peer reviewed journals and accepted as truly scientific advancements, according to what Dammitkevin says, I can't write about it. I didnt add my name or anyone else's in any of my edits. I have made sure they are scientifically consistent. Is the purpose of wikipedia to disseminate knowledge? So how can I add things to pages? This all started when I tried to add a new advancement which scientific community is excited about which is the anode free sodium ion battery. If more reference is needed then I can provide more reference from various researchers not from one single university. What makes Dammitkevin the authority on all scientific research that we do which as scientists we put through rigorous peer review ourselves.

I am not the authority on all scientific research and never claimed to be. You did add your own name because you added your own papers with the authors listed and the username you had before you changed it to the current one makes it pretty clear which author you are. If the scientific community is excited about a new advancement then somebody not affiliated with said advancement will surely add it to the encyclopedia. Dammitkevin (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, @Dammitkevin: Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it.

A) The content I worte was it relevant - YES B) Was it excessive - NO (I have only added three small sections to pages which were important and relevant) C) Was the citations direct - Except the case of Scrap metal battery (Which was discussed by Forbes and Times) the rest had information relevant to the field and was in no way direct and it was necessary to cite them D) I am ready to leave this to the judgement of the community.

It was excessive insofar as your only edits were self-promotional. See WP:REFSPAM. Dammitkevin (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, @Dammitkevin: As a scientific researcher and supporter of wikipedia, I am surprised that good science gets stuck in bureaucracy. You can go ahead and block me from this point forward!

You don't need to be blocked and whether or not your own work is "good science" is kind of something that other people should decide don't you think? If you work is as strong and exciting as you keep claiming it is surely someone else will agree and it will make its way into the appropriate articles without you needing to add it yourself. Dammitkevin (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, @Dammitkevin: So according to you someone else like "you" - is a good judge of a high impact peer reviewed article than the people who reviewed them in the first place and the people who work on them (Since you delete them at your discretion).

That is not what I said. Someone who isn't you is a good judge of whether or not your own work belongs in a Wikipedia article. You are making this personal and it really isn't. For the third time, if you work is as strong and exciting as you keep claiming it is surely someone else will agree and it will make its way into the appropriate articles without you needing to add it yourself. Dammitkevin (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, @Dammitkevin: But Wikipedia gives me permission to add my own work when they are relevant. And they are relevant. I am adding content to it which is new and broad and not very specific. So what is wrong if I add it? The COI policy allows that. I have quoted it. Is there a policy that forbids me from adding relevant articles which I have authored? If they are scientifically peer reviewed? I don't think I need to wait for someone else to add it for me. I am not adding false content. If disseminating scientific knowledge is the goal then what I did was not wrong.

@Dammitkevin: You can advice me to modify the content which I have added and I can definitely modify it to keep it as broad as possible. However, flat out deleting a relevant scientific advancement is not right irrespective of who the author is. I can add more references if needed from multiple sources from various universities and research labs. But I am not wrong to cite my own work.

Yes, you are free to add content, same as anyone. By the same token, anyone can remove it. If it is your own work, then you have a conflict of interest and are not able to neutrally decide the matter. You need to leave the decision to other, neutral, editors. SpinningSpark 23:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia has no firm rules Shortcut: WP:5P5

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected." Nick-Stannum (talk)

Before deleting what I had edited, the editor @Dammitkevin: should check the references for these two which are:

1) totally out of place in the article 2) references that promote one particular type of work. Sodium ion battery research is vast and if these two specific instances are considered important. Then a whole new approach to sodium ion battery which is the anode free architectures should be given predominant merit. Check the references for these two statements in the same page Sodium-ion battery if you are insistent on the COI policy of Wikipedia and before deleting my posts! Nick-Stannum (talk)

"Cellulose[edit source] In one study, tin-coated wood anodes replaced stiff anode bases. The wood fibers proved withstood more than 400 charging cycles. After hundreds of cycles, the wood ended up wrinkled but intact. Computer models indicated that the wrinkles effectively reduce stress during charging and recharging. Na ions move via the fibrous cell walls and diffuse at the tin film surface.[17][18]

Another study used MoS2/graphene composite paper as an electrode, yielding 230 Ah/kg with Coulombic efficiency reaching approximately 99%.[19][20][21]"

Please sign your posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. SpinningSpark 23:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilias Belharouak moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ilias Belharouak. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By sources do you mean references for the items I am including? If so I can do it in my own time and move the page back later. Also, would you be able to let me know what sources does the article need precisely? Nick-Stannum (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ilias Belharouak has been accepted

Ilias Belharouak, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]