Talk:StoreDot/Archive/2023

Please check the sources before editing

User:FightBrightTigh, please check the sources before editing.

• "why is John Timmer to be cited on a Wikipedia page about a company?" Because he is a reliable science journalist and he wrote an article that was published in a reliable source about StoreDot, the company whose article this is. Wikipedia articles are built on citing reliable sources, not press releases or churnalism.
• "Non-primary source needed" [for research paper] - there already existed a secondary source for the claims that StoreDot's technology has not been peer reviewed, directly before the quoted research paper. I've added another secondary source saying as much.

Nearly all of your edits have been reverted by me or other editors; if you check the sources before editing you won't have to request secondary sources when they already exist, or wonder why an article about StoreDot published in a reliable secondary source is referenced in a Wikiepdia article about StoreDot. HueSurname (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I cannot check the paywall source BTW. FightBrightTigh (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you check the Ars Technica source? You marked that it "failed verification". The Wikipedia article:

The company sent germanium sample batteries to manufactureres in place of silicon sample batteries.

The Ars Technica reference:

[...] the first round of sample batteries had been produced and were ready for testing by hardware manufacturers. But a key fact mentioned by The Guardian article is that, while the sample batteries are meant to match the performance of the final, mass-produced version, they're not actually chemically identical. To ease the first manufacturing run, StoreDot used the element one row below silicon. Germanium [...]

This is getting to be a habit of yours, adding bad sources, removing good sources, not finding the information in the cited sources. HueSurname (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@HueSurname which good sources I removed? FightBrightTigh (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

you by the way removed https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/19/electric-car-batteries-race-ahead-with-five-minute-charging-times this reliable source FightBrightTigh (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the Guardian source while removing StoreDot promotional language. Some reliable sources you've removed: the Ars Technica article, a well-cited peer reviewed paper, while adding multiple press releases and churnalism. You added "failed verification" despite the information very clearly and plainly being present in the source. You misread a sentence and thought it refers to StoreDot's number of employees when it refers to a spinoff company's number of employees

Your edits have, in general, been promotional and detrimental, removing reliable sources and misreading them. HueSurname (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Spinoff company

A StoreDot spinoff company which owns the technology that StoreDot was founded on, peptide-based storage and displays, is immediately related to StoreDot and its product development. The CEO said in 2013 that the technology is ready to be "packed and sold" for 300 million dollars, and here we are a decade later, and the technology is sitting in a shell company with no employees. StoreDot spun off the core technology it was founded on, if that's "not related" to StoreDot, nothing is. HueSurname (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If it so important, than a separate article should be posted on that company. if it's not notable, that it's not notable. another point is the CEO's words. I doubt the Wikipedia page should be based on someone's claims. it's kind of self-referencing and self-promotion. claims should be avoided in company related articles. What is the notability of mentioning of CEO's-ten-years-ago-claim in an interview? (interviews are by default not neutral and reliable sources). FightBrightTigh (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) You are confusing notability with due weight. (2) "What is the notability of mentioning of CEO's-ten-years-ago-claim in an interview?" Again, this is not about notability, this is about encyclopedic information. If the CEO said, many times, "we're going to have a product next year", and it was extensively covered in several reliable sources, then it's encyclopedic.

Quoting the policy verbatim: "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Since there are about ten or so sources about the CEO saying products are coming out "next year", four or so sources talking about peer review, and five or so sources mentioning that StoreDot was founded on peptide-based storage and display technology, all of these viewpoints are prominent in published, reliable sources.

Two short sentences about the company spinning off the technology it was founded on into a company with no employees is not "too much". It is neither excessive (two short sentences), nor irrelevant (it deals with the technology the company was founded on), nor trivial. HueSurname (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

...and now StoreDot is using the exact same line it used in 2015 about its display technology. "It's 100% compatible with existing [...] production lines." That doesn't seem to be the case, considering nothing ever came out of their display technology. HueSurname (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

SDLE not independent and not a lab

Despite StoreDot's press release, SDLE is not a lab and not independent. SDLE is a battery consultant and is affiliated with StoreDot: Virtual Battery Seminar 9-11 August 2022 (PDF), Shmuel De-Leon Energy and StoreDot invites you to join 8 hours battery virtual seminar. HueSurname (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Ben0.1Hur, the sources you provide are (1) a press release and (2) an amalgamation of several press releases. Mind phrases like "sector leading energy density" which are plucked right out of StoreDot press releases. And most importantly, Shmuel De Leon is not independent, he has worked with StoreDot and continues to hold conferences and give talks for-hire that promote different battery companies. His business is "Representing Energy Storage testing and research equipment companies in Israel", one of which is StoreDot. HueSurname (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (June 2023)

WP:AN#StoreDot company page, clearly promotional content has been added Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Uh, you got it backwards. I cleaned up the page from relying almost entirely on the company's press releases to relying on independent sources. See, for example, this edit where I removed tons of promotional material and pretty much the entire talk page above where I explain how StoreDot's promotional claims don't pan out in reality. HueSurname (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Joseph2302 User:Ben0.1Hur I'm removing the COI tag since as I mentioned, the promotional material was removed long ago and despite claims to the contrary there are no "vague, unnecessary details" in the article nor "personal remarks". HueSurname (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Joseph2302 User:Ben0.1Hur the discussion has been dormant for four weeks, and there is no other support. I'm removing the COI tag as recommended by WP:WTRMT7. HueSurname (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed COI tag. HueSurname (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate refs

User:Ben0.1Hur please be more careful when editing. You created five duplicate references. Please also try to read the relevant references before adding information because your edit made the 70-80 mil fundraising round in 2022 appear to be two different fundraising rounds for 70 mil and 80 mil, separately. HueSurname (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources

CEO as a reference

@HueSurname please refrain from adding google patent links, and podcasts with CEO. "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Wikipedia:Reliable sources Ben0.1Hur (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You have a grave misunderstanding if you think a CEO is not a reliable source for what their company is doing. See WP:ABOUTSELF. A CEO, which happens to hold a doctorate in industrial management engineering, is a reliable source about their own company's use of materials. There are no "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources", only a couple of sentences. HueSurname (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Checking references

And regarding this edit: please, as I've requested here before, do a better job checking the citations. From the citation, at the specified time codes:

Interviewer: "Do you predict supply chain issues with being able to produce the battery?"
CEO: "Absolutely. [...] We need nanoparticles of silicon. [...] We need somebody who can make 2000 tons of this material. We found some partners, one of them we have announced, with Group14 we have this partnership that they produce it for us", "[I want to] close some of these captive capacity agreements with the buildup of the supply chain that we also talked about for the nano-silicon which is also very critical."

I replaced "uses" with "needs" so it's 100% accurate to the source. Happy? Again, the CEO with a doctorate in engineering is a reliable source for which material their own company needs. HueSurname (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Abandoned patent as references

@HueSurname please refrain from adding google patent links
— User:Ben0.1Hur 09:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Uh... Ben0.1Hur... YOU added the reference to that patent... It's okay to change your mind but please don't blame me. HueSurname (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing information under false pretenses

For the third time Ben0.1Hur, you can't remove a source claiming it can't be used, and then use it yourself where it suits you. Regarding this particular source, see #CEO as a reference and WP:ABOUTSELF. More generally, you tend to remove material under mistaken or false pretenses (1, 2). HueSurname (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)