Pwarr5678

Regarding Geology of Venus

One person's, one-time presentation at LPI is not enough to justify suggesting that WIMPs have anything to do with the heating of the Venusian (or terran) interior. It's extremely fringe. Please limit yourself to statements that are backed by scientific consensus, and sources that are secondary (textbooks, lit reviews)...the idea is not to present the latest cutting edge science. The idea is to be as boring and uncontroversial as possible, presenting a mainstream of what is already accepted, plus some minority viewpoints with considerable followings. Those conferences at Johnson are frequently not reliable--they let in all sorts of weirdness like antimatter meteorites, etc. Getting a paper in there doesn't mean it needs to be in Wikipedia. Much of what you find in the "breakthrough" journals like Science and Nature are the same. Geogene (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Geofremtidology

The article Geofremtidology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One person's WP:NEOLOGISM, the publication of which this month is the only Google match. Fails notability.

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. Largoplazo (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Natargraphite

The article Natargraphite has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. One person's conjecture, in a work that is the only Google/Google Scholar hour, and that has no citations.

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. Largoplazo (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

COI editing

Hello, Pwarr5678. 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. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. 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 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. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

New concepts

Hi. It's important to be aware that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is meant to summarize information about established, well documented phenomena. I'm afraid it isn't meant to be used for disseminating new theories and concepts not already well covered elsewhere. Largoplazo (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)