User talk:Qflib
This is Qflib's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Hi Qflib, I added the UPE tag to article because the creator was just blocked as an WP:UPE sock but I also see you have done some work on it so if you think the article it meets WP:NPOV I have no issue with you removing it. S0091 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was trying to get it there but it looks like the whole article got wiped out! A strange result. I understand the sock issue of course, but the page is the page and for this to follow a positive and of the subject for notability was surprising. Also a little annoying tbh since I did spend some time trying to make it better. Qflib (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- For my own records…Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavlos Savvidis Qflib (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what happened. WP:G5 Qflib (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Stephan Irle has a new comment
[edit]Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephan Irle has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
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
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Reba16 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kamala Harris on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see no way to be helpful in that discussion. Qflib (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Wiki article on Molecular symmetry
[edit]Sorry, but this is Phil Bunker letting off steam about Wiki to you again! There is a 'box' at the beginning of this Wiki that begins with the unbelievable quote 'A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. I presume that the writer of this box takes me as this 'major contributor.' Does that mean that if you know a subject you will have a conflict of interest if you write about it? I believe that I really know this subject but I guess I should not put stuff into this wiki page. I was thinking about trying to completely rewrite this Wiki but clearly since I would not be able to avoid referring to some of my own work it would all be removed as a conflict of interest. Can you please do whatever is necessary to get this 'box' removed? 2607:FEA8:BD80:80:9ECA:7916:8D1B:2F24 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC) P.S. I am worried that somebody will remove, in the Molecular symmetry Wiki, the section'Molecular rotation and molecular nonrigidity' that I wrote and which I believe is very important for a full understanding of molecular symmetry. I was annoyed that smokefoot removed my carefully written paragraph about the spectroscopic discovery of the methylene radical by Herzberg and Shoosmith in the wiki for methylene, but I guess the Wiki reading community will have to suffer in ignorance of the discovery of methylene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - of course, you're very frustrated, and I understand that.
- What Wikipedia editors look for is for folks to write about subjects that they are experts in, using sources that they themselves did not write. When folks are perceived to have a conflict of interest on a particular subject, they are expected to declare that they have at least the potential for a COI on their own page, and not do any editing themselves on that subject, but instead put edit requests on article talk pages and leave the writing to others. Those would be good steps for you to take, I think.
- I would personally think that the box is overkill if it only applies to one section of the article, and I could look at whether I can move the notification to the section in question. At that point, probably the only way to get the box removed wold be for someone else to rewrite that section of the article, using a variety of sources inztead of/ in addition to the ones to your own work. I wish I could be more helpful but this is all I can see to do. Qflib (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- A pity that so much has now been changed. It is detrimental to the full description of the subject. Hopefully students will find out from their profs which books to read about this! It is specially a pity that the pdf file at the end of the article has been removed. I guess if Mossbauer wrote a Wiki on the Mossbauer effect it would be removed as a COI! Bunkerpr (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- It definitely would, if he extensively cited his own work. But if he wrote about the topic while not citing his own papers and left those citations to others to make, and declared his COI on his Talk page, that would be considered legit. Qflib (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have clarified the discussion of the resonance raman spectrum of ethylene. I know it will get removed but what else can I do. I feel that this section has been spoilt. And I certainly would prefer to read Mossbauer than some interpretation of his work. Have a nice day, Phil
- PS It would be nice if somebody could add a reference to the book by Per Jensen and me in this wiki! 2607:FEA8:BD80:80:9ECA:7916:8D1B:2F24 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a reference to the article by M Schnell with whom I have no COI. I hope no blighter removes it. It is surely of importance to add clarifying matter to wiki articles rather than to remove such matter. Bunkerpr (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- It definitely would, if he extensively cited his own work. But if he wrote about the topic while not citing his own papers and left those citations to others to make, and declared his COI on his Talk page, that would be considered legit. Qflib (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- A pity that so much has now been changed. It is detrimental to the full description of the subject. Hopefully students will find out from their profs which books to read about this! It is specially a pity that the pdf file at the end of the article has been removed. I guess if Mossbauer wrote a Wiki on the Mossbauer effect it would be removed as a COI! Bunkerpr (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lady Gaga on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
[edit]Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tuner (radio) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)