User talk:Lvilench

This is Lvilench's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Entropy Changes Are Quintessential Feature of the Nature (August 16)

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Lacks any inline references or citations required to satisfy WP:GNG.

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:Entropy Changes Are Quintessential Feature of the Nature 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:Entropy Changes Are Quintessential Feature of the Nature, 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lvilench! Having an article 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! Dan arndt (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with resubmission the article after corrections there were done. Separate question is how to change the topic of my submission: Originally it was "Entropy changes are quintessential feature of the nature", new topic is "Entropic interaction". Finally, it should be the original submission, but with new topic and corrected text. Lvilench (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC) ````[reply]

I'm afraid the issues do not appear to have been addressed. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the follow: Finally, it should be the original submission, but with new topic and corrected text. How to get this?

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by David.moreno72 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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 User:Lvilench/sandbox 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 User:Lvilench/sandbox, 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.

David.moreno72 00:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Entropic interaction has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Entropic interaction. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Entropic interaction (September 10)

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

This appears to be WP:original research. Also there is an article on entropic force here.

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:Entropic interaction 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:Entropic interaction, 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lev Vilenchik (September 18)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Biography is dense and complicated, and doesn't point out how Wikipedia-notable he is. Missing news and book articles that discuss his biography. Yes, he wrote lots of papers, but so what? How is he recognized for this work? Please show how he meets WP:NACADEMIC. Is he a dean of the physics department, or a fellow/award recipient of a notable research organization?

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:Lev Vilenchik 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:Lev Vilenchik, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Entropy Changes Are Quintessential Feature of the Nature (September 19)

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This reads more like what I'd expect to find in a student paper rather than an encyclopedia and it contains no in line citations.

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:Entropy Changes Are Quintessential Feature of the Nature 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:Entropy Changes Are Quintessential Feature of the Nature, 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.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Entropic interaction (September 20)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Comment from previous reviewer has yet to be solved. Pls read link provided and rework.

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:Entropic interaction 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:Entropic interaction, 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.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Entropic interaction (September 25)

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

This is original research. The references are not about entropic interaction as a separate concept. Instead they are used to support the editor's arguments for the meaning of the term. There are no secondary references supporting the editor's definition.

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:Entropic interaction 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:Entropic interaction, 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.

StarryGrandma (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the desire to solve the issue with presented article "Entropic interaction". Articles that are an original research should contain evidence for each statement. The article "Entropic interaction" does not provide any such evidences. The article contains just definition of the entropic interaction, some explanation of it and examples how the interaction is working. Evidences and a justification of all statements in this article are in the references. The term "entropic interaction" does not exist in second references. Instead this, you can find the term "entropic force". From the explanation of this term, you can see it emerges from the entropic interaction. But the term "entropic interaction" you can see inside of four cited original articles. ```` 21:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lvilench. The topic in this form is too new to have an article. The sources using entropic interaction are papers written by you. You are writing about your own new idea here. I will repeat what I said on my talk page in response to your question:

You say this is a new development in science. That is exactly the problem, it is too new and may not yet be accepted by others. You have, in your papers and in your book, Quintessence: A Thermodynamic Approach to the Phenomena of Nature, described entropic interaction as an overarching principle in physics. These are primary sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for publishing new ideas. To have an article here requires that a scientific concept be well enough known that it has been written about by people independent of you in secondary sources such as review articles. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It is too soon for other researchers to have taken this up, published their own papers, then had all this reviewed in secondary sources.

Wikipedia turns down many interesting and informative articles. Our requirements as an encyclopedia are different. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

I am sorry that you are disappointed by this. The role of entropy and the work being done on it today is a fascinating topic. Applications such as entropic interaction chromatography are interesting and could use an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StarryGrandma. Thank you for the clarification. But what is about references [4-9] in the article "entropic interaction"? These references for articles written by six different authors. And one of the article was written in 1980. Rather these articles are not secondary references? ```` 23:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I will explain further. References 4 - 9 are all references about entropic force, not entropic interaction:

4. Verlinde's article proposing entropic gravity (primary, his original work)

5. Wang's paper on an entropic derivation of Coulomb's law (primary, his original work)

6. Visser's paper on the difficulties with entropic gravity (secondary for entropic gravity since he reviews it in the introduction, primary for his own work)

7. Wissner-Gross and Freer's proposal for a causal generalization of entropic forces (primary, as they say this is new)

I can only see the abstracts for reference 8 and 9. They are primary sources for their authors work, but the abstract of reference 8 indicates that it also does a review of the topic of entropic force and is a secondary source.

If you are saying that entropic interaction is the same as entropic force, we don't need another article on that topic. Add the appropriate material to the existing Wikipedia article, entropic force. References 4 and 6 deal with entropic gravity for which we already have an article. See entropic gravity.

However I believe what you are saying is that entropic forces lead to an organizing principle for the universe which you are calling entropic interaction. Your draft article is an argument for this using the sources that you give as references. The references which you use to support your argument can be primary or secondary. That is not the point. In order to show that the topic is well-known enough for a Wikipeida article you need to provide in addition secondary sources for the topic of entropic interaction itself. Your own publications are primary sources. You need sources that show sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Other people, independent of your research group or students, need to have investigated your work and written about it before there can be an article. It is too soon. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to Starry Grandma

Hi Starry Grandma, Thank you for your clarification and advice. I used this to add my description of the entropic interaction into the existing article "Entropic Force". Is this acceptable?

Best regards, Lvilench ```` 05:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Working on articles in Wikipedia is a collaboration. When you add material you need to put it into the structure that is already there. And since it isn't in draft space you need to format references. It has been removed. I will put back the pieces that I think will fit and fix the references. The first paragraphs summarize the rest of the article. Examples go in the example section. Controversial (not yet accepted in physics) examples go in that section. The sections have been the topic of discussion of the talk page of the article and editiors have come to this agreement. References need formatting - see Help:Referencing for beginners. We have a lot of policies that help maintain a consistent style and tone in the encyclopedia. See an introduction at Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style StarryGrandma (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,StarryGrandma. My English is not perfect. I didn't understand if you would do something with my added material or you only gave me some advices? ```` 03:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I will add some of the material to the article. Don't put it back yourself. It has been removed twice now. That means someone has objected to it. I will discuss it on the talk page of the article and see what can to back. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,StarryGrandma. You are very kind to me. What you made today with the article is perfect. Only one thing should be still corrected. This is the Table of the contect. After that the corrected article "Entropic force" could be submitted. Can I ask you to do this? Sincerely, Lvilench ```` 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed reference # 37 Lvilench ```` 03:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you please help me to remove old Table of contents?```` 14:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Hi, StarryGrandma. Could you please help me as well to remove the template message about "unclear citation style"? I think the citation is ok now. ```` 21:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. The Table of Contents (and the numbering) is automatically generated from the section headings by the Wikipedia software. I will fix the section headings. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, StarryGrandma. You are great! But what about to remove the template message "unclear citation style" in the current article "Entropic force"? I think the citation is ok now. Is it possible?```` 03:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Hi StarryGrandma. I am grateful to you. I removed one reference and added page number for other two. Is it possible to remove the template message "unclear citation style" in the current article "Entropic force"? Sincerely, Lvilench```` 04:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wolkenstein M. W., 1959, Configuration statistics of polymeric chains, Prod. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Bresler S. E. and Erusalimsky B. L., 1965, Physics and chemistry of macromolecules, Nauka, M.-L.

Template:Wolkenstein M. W., 1959, Configuration statistics of polymeric chains, Prod. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Bresler S. E. and Erusalimsky B. L., 1965, Physics and chemistry of macromolecules, Nauka, M.-L. has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Time in physics— has been undone because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DVdm, thank you for you note.

You are partially right.My corrections for this article could be considered as a promotional. But this is promotion of more complete and moderate description of the notion of time. Thoughts by Mach, Schrodinger, England and mine about nature of time are not present in the previous reduction of the article. There are not any contradictions with the old version of the paper, and I think my corrections would be useful for better understanding of the nature of time. ```` 20:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Time in physics. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have a conflict of interest (see wp:COI) in this, so it's best to raise this on the article talk page. Don't forget to mention this. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see wp:BRD and wp:Edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Time in physics, you may be blocked from editing.

Your recent editing history at Time in physics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - DVdm (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DVdm,

I don't want to be involved in the edit war. By open that page,I just wanted to know what this means. Sorry, my experience with Wikipedia is very small, therefore some of my actions could look strange. To satisfy your requirement, I currently removed last reference for one of my article. Any way, thank you. ```` 22:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that is probably the best way to avoid losing the privilige to edit Wikipedia. We all have it, but the privilige can be taken away. When wp:secondary sources will pick up on our own work, someone will use it as a reference to add content here. Patience is the keyword. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Entropy Changes Are Quintessential Feature of the Nature

Hello, Lvilench. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Entropy Changes Are Quintessential Feature of the Nature".

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. JMHamo (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lev Vilenchik

Hello, Lvilench. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lev Vilenchik".

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. JMHamo (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Entropic interaction

Hello, Lvilench. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Entropic interaction".

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. JMHamo (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]