Roybeckbarkai

Welcome!

Hi Roybeckbarkai! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philip (Fyl) Pincus (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Umakant Bhalerao was: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Philip (Fyl) Pincus and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Roybeckbarkai! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Biography

• When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not your opinions or reviews.
• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. If you are writing about yourself, or someone you know as a friend, colleague, client, employer or relative, you have a conflict of interest, and you must disclose the nature of that COI. Jimfbleak - talk to me?

More

Thanks for message. Please actually read what I have said above, the fact that he's obviously notable doesn't mean that you can write what you like. The comments also apply to Draft:Philip (Fyl) Pincus, but I've left that for now because it's a draft not yet submitted for review.

You had virtually no independent third-party sources, most of your references were his own papers and lists of his papers. The claim He was a Professor Emeritus of Physics at Tel Aviv University. is, strangely, sourced to an obituary notice from his family and friends, the exact opposite of a neutral source. A fair bit of your text is unsourced and appears to be your own commentary. Note that someone's own books and articles should almost never be used as references to themselves. They can be listed under "Publications" with no further referencing.

The tone is hagiographic, not encyclopaedic, with your opinions presented as fact provided insights into the nature of the pseudogap in these materials... his hallmark papers... represent significant milestones in his research career and have had a lasting impact on the field... This work provided valuable insights into the dynamics of film growth and its impact on the resulting film properties.... not only a brilliant scientist but also a dedicated leader and mentor... Many of his students went on to hold prominent positions in academia and industry in Israel and abroad... leaving behind a beloved family and a legacy of scientific achievement and a profound impact on the field of superconductivity.

You also have multiple in-text external links, mostly to sales sites, we are not here to sell his books.

You also haven't answered my COI query Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for message. I think that you are still missing the point that his own papers should not be used to reference themselves, just be listed in a Publications section. His notability depends on, as you correctly say, his academic positions, awards and prizes, and on what other people say about his research. The fact that a paper exists isn't notable in itself, it's what it leads to that matters. So the fact that they are highly cited by others makes him notable, not the fact that they exist, and therefore the papers are never suitable as a reference to themselves. I'll restore the text here shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

See, for example Emma Louisa Turner#Publications Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Philip (Fyl) Pincus moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Philip (Fyl) Pincus. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and The article also needs to be edited to ensure a neutral tone in accorance with WP:NPOV. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please comment where do you find problem. I referenced to highly cited, peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in reputed scientific journals demonstrating the credibility of the above scientists. You can also find Prof. Pincus whereabout online at the mentioned affiliations. If you can help us understand were exactly we need to mend the page this will be of great assistance Roy Beck (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Umakant Bhalerao so they see this. I think I've already addressed the main points above and on my talk page. They are the same problmes as with Deutscher. The refs are his own papers rather than independent sources, and the tone is adulatory rather than encyclopaedic. Also, don't move either page back to article space yourself without a review or consulting myself or Umakant Bhalerao since you have a COI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. When we cite the discoveries of scientists we usually cite the original papers to allow others to further learn in depth that topic. The credibility of those papers are given by the amount of independent other scientific papers that cited those original papers. For all the references I entered for both Deutscher and Pincus there are 100's of independent citations validating the credibility and importances of their discoveries. For example, please have a look on the wiki page of the Nobel laureate in physics Pierre Agostini. Most of the references there are of his own papers that made an impact. This can be seen for almost all scientists engage in hard core science and not PR and what other write about them...One last point, papers that are published in respectable journals goes through a harsh blind peer-review review making it credible and vetted by an independent source. I will tune the tone to be more encyclopaedic before submitting it for review. Roy Beck (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• You must remove external links from your text, especially links to the books. Either write them as text, or put them in a Publications section

• When you list his books, you must give the year, publisher and isbn number, but with no reference.
• I've changed "passed away " to "died", to save the bot the trouble

• Your draft will not be accepted with so much unreferenced text

• geni.com is not an acceptable source, my script red-lists it

• You don't have refs for stuff that makes him notable, like the honours and awards and leadership, even though you know one exists for "being elected as an IPS fellow in 2018 by the Israel Physical Society" because you had an external link (now removed) to the awarding body. Why didn't you make it a proper ref?

• Conversely, all his papers are referenced to themselves, rather than put in a Publications section as I keep saying. A self-reference is pointless, and doesn't make him notable, it's the bits you haven't referenced that do that. Journal articles, like books, just need listing, not referencing.

• When you are ready, add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and save. An uninvolved reviewer will then make a decision

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Guy Deutscher (physicist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Guy Deutscher (physicist). Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Guy Deutscher (physicist) has been accepted

Guy Deutscher (physicist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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!

Garsh (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)