User talk:Jn.mdel

Welcome

Hello, Jn.mdel, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

As you have just started editing, I hope you find the following selection of links helpful and that they provide you with some ideas for how to get the best out of Wikipedia.

Happy editing! Fæ (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Guide for younger editors
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles Request departments
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Userfied copy of E-rehabilitation

Hi, I have userfied your original version of E-rehabilitation at User:Jn.mdel/sandbox. The guidelines of User pages apply to userspace but in general as you intent to work to improve this article there should be no issue with keeping it here as long as you need to. Refer to the comments on my talk page for a longer summary. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of E-rehabilitation

The article E-rehabilitation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of the sources use the term "e-rehabilitation". This article has previously been redirected, userfied and now recreated. This appears to be an original neologism for a religious/spiritual concept which may be confused with the same term used as an alternative for telerehabilitation. Refer to the existing discussion at Talk:E-rehabilitation and User_talk:Fæ#Regarding_"E-Rehabilitation".

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fæ (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Integrative Rehabilitation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Integrative Rehabilitation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrative Rehabilitation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fæ (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Went and added to the sandbox per request. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Integrative Rehabilitation.
To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Shearonink (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Integrative Rehabilitation concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Integrative Rehabilitation, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Integrative Rehabilitation

Hello Jn.mdel. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Integrative Rehabilitation.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Integrative Rehabilitation}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Polarization E and B modes (May 7)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by TheLonelyPather was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: We already have Polarization (waves).

Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before you reject a valid article, may I request you to please revisit your comments and tell:

1. Where does the quoted existing article "Polarisation (waves)" mention about E and B modes? The existing article is only about light waves - whereas this new article is about Polarisation observed in cosmic background radiations

2. You also say the proposed article is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" - may I know how is this possible when the article is cleary talking about a valid topic

3. Lastly, can you please point out where in Wikipedia currently are the E and B modes explained - which is relevant to both cosmic background radiations as well as gravitational waves? Are these topics contrary to purposes of wikipedia?

I hope your comment was probably an oversight and you would be kind enough to remove the rejection comment.

Regards, Jn.mdel (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jn.mdel! 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! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hi Jn.mdel! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Fractionalization that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Apocheir (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Actually, I had landed on page spinon and then I noticed that in all three articles of - spinon, holon and orbiton - as well as spin-charge separation too, the terminology for these was - spinon, holon and orbiton only. Infact in spin-charge separation article it already mentions "holon (or chargon)" - hence I updated the link to holon in this fractionalization article (also because the term chargon is already directed to holon (physics) page itself) - hope this sounds agreeable. Jn.mdel (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Truncated Triangular Pyramid Number (September 26)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Truncated Triangular Pyramid Number 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - would appreciate if you reconsider your comment - because if you do a search for "Truncated Triangular Pyramid Number" on english wikipedia itself - it shows results for "273 (number)", "204 (number)" etc. - all of which mention that these are "Truncated Triangular Pyramid Number" - but fail to clarify the term.

Infact in article "273 (number)", the article is linked to "Truncated Triangular Pyramid" article as part of its text - whereas it actually should be linking to something explaining about "Truncated Triangular Pyramid Number" - but probably there is nothing currently to link to.

Hence, you may please review and possibly even classify as stub or whatever to take it forward.

Alternatively, I can add links to the above referred "273 (number)", "204 (number)" etc. articles as points of additonal "reliable" references - and then resubmit - so please advise Jn.mdel (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic forgot to add your name in the reply - so kindly please peruse my above clarification to your feedback - thanks. Jn.mdel (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are probably millions of subjects that are mentioned on two article, that is not what makes something notable. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Currently you have just the single source. There are a huge number of these types of number and the OEIS does a good job of documenting them. Although I'm personally a fan of such things, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia needs more. Both of those articles link to the same source so the article is not adding much. See if you can find a couple more sources about them. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic Hi - I have resubmitted the draft with more information and updations done - hope this meets the initial adequacy requirements, please see Jn.mdel (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic - Hi - just wondering if you could peruse the updated draft - please do let know at your convenient priority. Jn.mdel (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been resubmitted so it will be picked up by a reviewer at some point. To be fair to all submitters I don't review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random or work on certain topics, so it may or may not be myself who reviews it next. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic Thanks and fully appreciate your reply - infact I never intended to even remotely imply for an out-of-turn review instead I was only following-up as you being the original reviewer who nudged me towards more - thanks - and so, I would allow this to await its turn. regards and good day. Jn.mdel (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, some reviewers so focus on particular drafts or areas and are happy to review again.... but many also think it's better to get different eyes on a re-submission, as we have had a few rare cases of a reviewer missing some notability and just keep declining. I may still pick it up, I just have a lot of other things IRL and here to look at first. Good job of sticking with it and improving though. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Polarization E and B modes

Hello, Jn.mdel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Polarization E and B modes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLonelyPather@Ldm1954@Johnjbarton Hi - I am writing to you again regarding the reworked draft Draft:Polarization E and B modes and request you to please re-visit and review this in light of the added new updates.

I hope this revised draft now merits removal of the earlier misplaced comment - "Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" and the incorrect decline reason "We already have Polarization (waves)" - because even till today "Polarization (waves)" article does not talk about E and B modes.

Nevertheless, I have now tried to highlight the basis and process of generation of these two modes - and would only request that the name of this article may please be changed back to what was originally submitted - "E and B Modes (Polarization)" - because I am not allowed to change the heading myself and it was changed by someone else earlier in good faith.

Hope to a positive consideration at your end this time around. Jn.mdel (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did the simplest thing, which is to mark claims which are unsourced. You need to find sources for those, it should be automatically rejected in its current form.

Beyond that, you need to reorganize your refs, you cite the same book 7 times. You cannot use Research Gate for references, it has to be the proper published one; lecture notes are weak sources. You need far more to establish that this is not Wikipedia:OR. For instance, find well cited reviews on the topic.

You have a lot more work to do before this becomes close to acceptable, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954@Johnjbarton@TheLonelyPatherThanks for the constructive feedback - I have now added references at every single place where you had asked for a citation - because not even one of them was unsourced.

However, because you had asked for citation at almost every paragraph - hence, I could not avoid repeat reference to certain sources incase multiple information are being reproduced from same reference material.

I am only flattered if you think it is Wikipedia:OR - because I do not think I could have cooked up so much. Nevertheless, I have now linked almost all technical terms also to relevant wikipedia articles - hence, hope this also adds to the referencing points.

Submitting for your kind consideration please. Jn.mdel (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current draft needs additional work.

As far as I can tell the subject of this article is intended to be the same one as Cosmic_microwave_background#Polarization. That is, the subject is not E and B modes generally, but only in the context of cosmological study. So I would object to the title as ambiguous in general.

The short section Cosmic_microwave_background#Polarization has better quality refs than this article. I encourage you to review these refs and incorporate them.

The article doesn't give sufficient background for the topic and it does not relate the topic to the rest of wikipedia. Every significant technical topic discussed should be wiki-linked to corresponding article. The text here should coordinate with the linked article so readers going either direction will understand the connection. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton@Ldm1954@TheLonelyPather Hi - just to clarify your view that this draft article is something to do with CMB only - so I have now added a line right at the beginning of the article - quoting from Cosmic background radiation article - which clarifies that Cosmic Microwave Background is just one part of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

I have also now linked almost all technical terms in the article to relevant wikipedia articles - I was hoping to get some help from collaborators in future too for adding more links / references / information etc. etc. - but I only hope to have done a fair job of same at present to meet the requirements.

Submitting for your kind consideration please. Jn.mdel (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address most of my concerns. A title like "Cosmic microwave radiation polarization" satisfactory. The references are still inferior to our current content on this subject. The background was not improved.

The first paragraph is confusing. It should be redeveloped into three short sections of Background material: 1) a summary of Cosmic background radiation, 2) a summary of electromagnetic radiation and 3) a summary of Polarization (waves). These maybe one or two sentences but they need to be enough so readers don't have to guess what the article is supposed to be about. Eventually you need a new first paragraph that summarizes the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton@Ldm1954@TheLonelyPather Sincere thanks for taking out time to peruse and give specific inputs about missing clarity in opening section as well as the suggestion about renaming the article to "Cosmic Background Radiation Polarization".

I have tried to address both your valuable inputs and as regards title changes - I might wish to stick with the original "E and B modes (Polarization)" - but if your well-meaning and experienced suggestion is deemed better by all , then this new title "Cosmic Background Radiation Polarization" too is wonderful because the new title relevance is also now integrated into the article well.

Thanks once again and look to your inputs / decision. Jn.mdel (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you did not address correctly the basic formatting issues. You currently have 5 copies of the book by Padmanabhan, 4 to a uchicago web page, one to researchgate (not appropriate), one to a web page and ONLY one to an independent review. One 2 adequate sources.

Get help, please do that before contacting us again. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954@Johnjbarton@TheLonelyPather My apologies if my replies to you are intruding upon you time - but I only wrote to the two-three people who were involved in the article review earlier too - and who have been giving valuable inputs and direction directly or indirectly.

Anyways I have updated for your formatting points too now - and would only request you to kindly peruse whenever you get time at your convenience and advise and/or process removal of decline banner.

Thanks once again for all the inputs given till now - those all points help tremendously. Jn.mdel (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave to others the issue of scientific content; while I have some knowledge of this, they have spent more time on it so let's not duplicate.

In terms of general structure, it is much, much better with one caveat -- there is no Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Ldm1954 (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954@Johnjbarton@TheLonelyPather Thanks for spending time to review again.

I now wait for John and Lonelypather replies / decision. Jn.mdel (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]