User talk:Knoppson

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

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

Plasma Fusion Preface looks really good, Knoppson! You might want to remove the reference to 'the wolfman', and an introductory paragraph giving a brief outline of what all the formulae actually mean in layman's terms - most articles have some sort of lede paragraph. Do you mean it as the preface to a book or wikibook on the subject? Maybe then it would be more suitable to wikibooks, but I would suggest you introduce more text between the formulae. There might be a danger it would be merged into the main plasma (physics) article here. Keep contributing! :) Berek (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC) PS - please continue this conversation (if you wish) on my talk page - I'm more likely to see it there! :)[reply]

An article you recently created, Relativistic Energy Visualisation, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

This reeks of original research, and regardless is inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia; we do not need a first-year-physics derivation of trivial maths equations.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Relativistic Energy Visualisation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Relativistic Energy Visualisation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• 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.

Primefac (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"first-year-physics", who do you think you are? Isn't Wikipedia for everyone? I think that my sudden understanding of what the relativistic energy equation means and can be wieved as benefits all man kind (not only "experts" like you). Or perhaps you are that kind of priesthood that never really lets people question physics and think for themselves? Knoppson (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is for everyone, but it is not for everything. We have rules about what kind of publication we are (an Encyclopedia) and what kinds of content we carry. One of our more important policies is that we don't publish original research. We are a tertiary source, like most encyclopedias: we write articles about what other reliable sources have said about a topic. Your comment above implies that the concept in this article is your own idea. That makes it explicitly not an acceptable subject for a Wikipedia article. This is no reflection on the merits of your idea; it's just that this topic may fall outside our scope.--Srleffler (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you. A visualisation of a known formula is NOT original research because the formula itself is verifiable, the only thing that is new is how to interpet it and understand it using graphical visualisation. Knoppson (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But everything that we do with a formula, and that has not been published in the literature, is defined as wp:Original research. That is how Wikipedia is designed. Publication in the relevant literature is needed to establish wp:DUEness. - DVdm (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is a risk that Wikipedia will stagnate. Knoppson (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not if we are patient. If we publish our work and wait until it gets picked up by the literature, we will know that it is worthwhile, and then it can (and will) deserve its place in encyclopedias such as this. - DVdm (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of think you are contradicting yourself here, as you have actually told me you can't publish ANY work until it already exists in the litterature. Am I missing something here? Knoppson (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't publish any work here unless it already exists in the other literature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. - DVdm (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Plasma fusion preface has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is a set of notes made for self-study, unlikely to be developed into a full coherent article without repeating information found in other articles or sources. Seconded by at least 2 other people on WT:PHYSICS#Plasma fusion preface

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I do not have the time to improve my article right now, I have lots of other more important things to do. I have however wished to improve it for a long time while I am quite content with it as is (you may however change it as you wish, though). Please don't delete it because it was hard work in several ways making it. I really think I have been punished for being "mean" above but you people could sometimes be more humble and guiding instead of so condescending as Primefac above. Best regards, Roger Knoppson (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plasma fusion preface is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasma fusion preface until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Srleffler (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knoppson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Relativistic Energy Visualisation".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DannyS712! I don't fully understand what you mean because I tagged that article for deletion and it was deleted, I did this because someone told me that "original reseach" was not permitted and all I nowadays do is original research because I am tired of not being allowed to think by myself. Best regards, Roger. Knoppson (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]