EntropyFormula

EntropyFormula, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi EntropyFormula! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Planck Length edit

In your [1] edit on Planck Length you gave as a journal article reference to the text you inserted "E. Haug, Can the Planck Length Be Found Independent of Big G, Applied Physics Research, Vol. 10, No. 1. (2017)". I cannot find this article in the journal you cite. Please can you clarify? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

It is there, just google "Can the Planck Length Be Found Independent of Big G" and look at one of the links google gives you.

Planck Length edit by user:EntropyFormula

This edit is copied from User talk:EntropyFormula:

In your [2] edit on Planck Length you gave as a journal article reference to the text you inserted "E. Haug, Can the Planck Length Be Found Independent of Big G, Applied Physics Research, Vol. 10, No. 1. (2017)". I cannot find this article in the journal you cite. Please can you clarify? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

It is there, just google "Can the Planck Length Be Found Independent of Big G" and look at one of the links google gives you. (unsigned)

The correct reference to the paper is Applied Physics Research 9,(6) 2017. Not as in the article. This paper has only 9 citations in Google Scholar, every one of them a self citation. I have removed the section as being of inadequate notability for the article. I note that all of your edits are to topics connected to Espen Gaarder Haug. Do you have any connection with this person that would amount to a WP:COI. If so you should declare it. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC).

I have removed the section from the article as it is inadequately sourced. My browser did not allow me to add an edit summary. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC).

Is this how Xxanthippe judge recently published science? by how many citations? It can take years before published papers get well cited. Are you not capable of studying the simple math and understand how a Cavendish apparatus works and understand that the Planck length can be measured independent of the Newton's gravitational constant. Yes if this was a very complex proof with new exotic math one could naturally claim one had to have many citations first. But that is not the case, it is based on simple high school math combined with basic physics. Have you ever done experimental research with a Cavendish apparatus, do you understand the simple derivations in the paper (that is shown step by step in the appendix of the paper) ? Exactly what do you claim is wrong with the derivations or the use of Cavendish apparatus?. You can add discussion to the topic, or claim such as hopefully further research will better confirm this, but please stop deleting things simply not in your taste. If you only can judge published work based on where published and the number of citations and edit wikipedia only based on that, then what shall we do? Or will you claim wikipedia only is for old science and old papers where the published science have many citations already? Look around wikipedia and you will see this is not the case. I look forward to your comments Xxanthippe, but please relate them to science, number of citations is not very relevant. EntropyFormula (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia judges the notability of a subject by the note taken of it by multiple, independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a forum for the publication of orioginal research. In this case nobody has taken any interest in the paper apart from the nine self-citations[3] of its author. I note that you have not denied a WP:COI in this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

I agree that this is not notable enough for this article and seems like pseudoscience. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

If you only can judge published work based on where published and the number of citations and edit wikipedia only based on that, then what shall we do? Or will you claim wikipedia only is for old science and old papers where the published science have many citations already? Look around wikipedia and you will see this is not the case. Established science, yes. Some other articles may indeed violate this (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). However, experimental science is also covered if it is very notable. Wikipedia considers notable topics about which coverage is significant in secondary or tertiary sources (WP:NOTABILITY). —PaleoNeonate – 19:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this science? one claiming it has too few citations, and other just claiming pseudoscience. Again is it hard to check the simple derivations that is based on high school math and basic physics principles? Is it hard to understand a simple Cavendish apparatus? Well I am happy it is well documented it was removed, and that we can document who did so also. Thanks!

Managing a conflict of interest

Since you appear to only be interested in editing articles in relation to a person and his hypothesis, I am posting below a standard conflict of interest notice which contains information on related Wikipedia policies.

---

Hello, EntropyFormula. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —PaleoNeonate – 14:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this also why when I posted that the first known published source off the Planck temperature was published in 1899 by Max Planck got deleted (at the Planck temperature page) ? I think we have a handful of wikipedia editors thinking very high of themselves, but not really into the topics. I only edit on topics I have looked into for many years. May be other wikipedia editors should do the same. Then they would for example likely very well know the work of Donna Strickland and not delete a Nobel prize winner in physics wikipedia profile page based on lack of notability and such. Yes wikipedia has rules and guiltiness, but the more square headed a few wikipedia editors uses this rules to edit as they feel for the lower will the quality of wikipedia become. That is sad because wikipedia has a lot of good information. The editors with deep knowledge and not editing wildly outside what they are truly interested in seems to do a better job. But clearly it is a few wikipedia editors that think they have monopoly on editing and deleting other editors posting, possibly because they have been here for some years. Look at my editing at the Planck temperature, where I tried to add historical facts and how it quickly got deleted. See the talk page there.

EntropyFormula (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this also why when I posted that the first known published source off the Planck temperature was published in 1899 by Max Planck got deleted (at the Planck temperature page) ? why would it be related (you obviously didn't write that book). The reason was explained at the article's talk page. We need a source which says something like: "Plank's first mention...", "Plank came out with ... in (year)", etc; to satisfy the verification policy. About Strickland, it's interesting what happened: a draft was declined because it lacked sources to assess notability. Basically, it was too seminal before its author submitted it. This also didn't cause its deletion, a draft can be resubmitted. The article is now in mainspace. It however appears that clickbait news quickly echoed misleading twitter threads that didn't report what really happened. —PaleoNeonate – 16:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)