User | Talk | Archives | My work | Sandbox | Resources | News | Stats |
---|
|
I undid your undo
You very recently undid a "touchup" revision I made on of the article on the top quark. Kindly "back off". Your opinion that it is "mostly pointless" is validly your opinion, but not a legitimate reason for erasing another editor's changes. 107.127.18.32 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Undone again, take it to the talk page (see WP:BRD). These are not improvements and your are messing with long-established articles (including Featured articles) with a well established style for no reason. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
About deleting marked as predatory sources
Hello. As I think there is no need to delete immediately all the predatory sources from the new article if they are marked as bad and their information is correct (there is no obviously wrong information in the deleted review). I try to substitute them, but it is not so easy to find another sources for such a common information. If they were deleted it would be hard to check information because it is not marked as without the sources. I use those marks to find better sources. Moreover Mahasen L.M.A. has been published in one more journal that might be reliable ([1]). So the probably can be treated as expert (WP:SELFPUB), but an expertise would be needed. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Predatory sources are not reliable (they are at best something equivalent to SPS, and that's if you can corroborate the claims of a predatory journal through other reliable sources, see WP:VANPRED). If the only thing that supports a claim is a predatory journal, the information is not verified through reliable sources. This is critically important for WP:MEDRS claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see the cn template that you added, missed it. The information is marked as without sources so it's ok. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The Scouting Barnstar
![]() |
The Scouting Barnstar | |
Thank you for your work on the Portal:Scouting/Recognized content page. --evrik (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
Query about AuthorHouse
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220620145150im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Purple_arrow_right.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_right.svg.png)
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Simple English Wikipedia
Hello, I was wondering if you could look at the Atom article on Simple English Wikipedia. It should be around the level that would be seen in an article like Introduction to quantum mechanics, but articles at that project try to use Basic English. It would be great if you could review the article to see if it's factually correct and reasonably comprehensive. See simple:Wikipedia:About for more info about that project. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Headbomb. I was also contacted by this editor regarding this Simple English article. If you recall my understanding of physics is not a deep as yours. So, I think it would be best if you or someone on par with your background could review this article. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Lights and freedom:, I'm sorry to say, but I don't really believe in the value of Simple English Wikipedia. But I'll take a look at the lead.
The bit about crystals is ... off at best. Liquids and amorphous solids are also joining of atoms, and those aren't crystals. There's also very poor grammar in "Other example of chemical reaction are the break of a molecule into atoms..." which should probably be "Other chemical reactions are the breaking of a molecule into individual atoms..." or similar.
- "The number of protons of an atom is sometimes called its "atomic number". For example, atoms of hydrogen have one proton while atoms of sulfur have 16 protons."
This should make it clear that H has an atomic number of 1, and S has an atomic number of 16, and not leave it implicit. Maybe you also could give an example of atomic mass / mass number, like Sodium = 11 Proton + 12 Neutrons = 23 (Atomic Mass number) and then compare to the real value of 23Na = 22.989770 u for atomic mass, which is very close to 23.
- "Atoms are only rarely made, destroyed, or changed into another kind of atom."
Should probably make it clear what the link to fission/fusion is here.
- "Any person has more than 1027 atoms in their body; some of these were once a part of every person who has ever lived."
Seems like a weird number/quantity to focus on. If the idea is to say that there's a lot of atoms in not a lot of space, using a small common object (like an apple), like seems to make more sense. Or a fixed known mass, like a 1 kg = 1 L bottle of water. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)