User talk:EvilxFish

EvilxFish, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Goldfinger (mechanism)
Hi. I have moved the article Goldfinger (mechanism) to the Draft: namespace at Draft:Goldfinger (mechanism) so that you can work on it when you have the time. When it is ready you can move it back to the article space. Regards,  GILO  A& E&uArr;  21:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks, I will be sure to include the "Draft:" part next time, unfortunately it has been deleted now so I am not sure if I am allowed to create this article. I was just waiting for my universities archives to be back online next Friday (they are currently doing maintenance). EvilxFish (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi EvilxFish! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:40, Saturday, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

Here's the drill
I reverted your edits to Mechanically interlocked molecular architectures in the hopes that you can reinstitute related edits but adhering to WP:SECONDARY. The gist of this guideline is that Wikipedia seek citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style. For example, the reverted edit cites Chem Comm, a journal that publishes thousands of reports each year. Wikipedia hss no interest in keeping up with such a gusher of details. If you have questions, many editors can offer advice and help. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for violating the secondary sources rule I am not used to writing encylopedia articles (I only started editing wikipedia a few days ago and I am mostly used to writing papers and reports), my main source is http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2014/cc/c3cc47842d . I know it is from chem com but it is a secondary source as the authors are reviewing the literature. The other references I included were from their references list which then give more details about the discussed information. Should I rewrite it ignoring the extra details in the primary sources and take the aforementioned page as my definitive source? As a lot of the work into Mechanically interlocked molecular architectures is quite new there isn't a great deal of secondary sources to reference and interesting observations, for example a catenane with 3 retention sites can give a large range of colors, may be left out otherwise. EvilxFish (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Having read the policy it states for primary material it states "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I only stated the facts as stated in the primary literature and further interpretation was carried out not by me but rather my aforementioned secondary source? May I reinstate my edits please? It also says Peer reviewed journals are considered as being reliable sources. EvilxFish (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being a pain but I did spend a while researching this area to update the page, please could you respond as soon as possible so I know if I need to find new sources or if the secondary source I have is ok.
 * My mistake on the ChemComm. I keep forgetting that they publish reviews.  Thanks for the note. Sometimes it is necessary or desirable to cite primary citations, I do it for "firsts", Xray structures, and when no other source is available.  For my playbook, other guidelines is that I avoid the term "recently", which IMHO, has zero place in an encyclopedia.  It smacks of WP:recentism. Thanks for taking the time and working with me on improving the article.  --Smokefoot (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Electron paramagnetic resonance
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-92948-3_1. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia-integrated academic journal
Hi,

I'm messaging to ask whether you might be interested in being an editor for the WikiJournal of Science (www.WikiJSci.org)? It's a journal modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated medical journal (www.WikiJMed.org). The editorial board is covers a range of fields and expertise.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science (articles often get >100,000 views per year).

Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Based on my experiences, time commitment is pretty flexible. An editor would generally devote 2-10 hours per month to inviting suitable submissions and organise their external peer review:
 * Identify fully missing Wikipedia topics and invite academics to write broad review articles on them (e.g. this)
 * Identify important, but poorly covered topics and invite experts to update or overhaul them (e.g. this)
 * Invite authors of good Wikipedia pages to put their articles through external peer review (like this)
 * Possibly implement some figure or gallery review articles (e.g this and this)

Hopefully it will help to get experts, academics and professionals to contribute content to the encyclopedia via a more familiar and cv-rewarding academic journal.

Anyway, let me know if it's the sort of thing that might interest you. PS. A relevant article in Science.

T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC), edited 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is most certainly something that will interest me! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. How do I sign up and would you have any objection if I sent this idea around to various academics at my university? Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're interested! Below are the relevant steps to take to join the board (also, I realised I missed out some links in the message above, so I've taken the liberty of editing the previous message).
 * Sign up to the general WikiJournal mailing list (covers general news on all WikiJournals)
 * Sign up to the Wiki.J.Sci.mailing list
 * Sign up to the Editorial board with a brief summary of yourself (see previous applications here)
 * Public discussion is typically held on the WikiJournal discussion boards, but there will also be a private mailing list for Wiki.J.Sci. editorial board discussions. Some of the roles available within the journal include:
 * Article invitations
 * Will be key to building the first issue
 * Detailed more below
 * General strategy
 * Who to target (academic levels and fields)
 * Endorsements to aim for (e.g. unis and scientific societies)
 * Recruitment (additional expertise on the board)
 * Manuscript types (see below)
 * Admin
 * The most glamorous option
 * E.g. typesetting, organising dois, index service applications, formatting, website improvements, updating ethics statements
 * Much of this won't come up until later
 * Outreach
 * Contacting our own networks
 * Newsletters, mailing lists, posters
 * Advertising within our departments, unis, scientific societies, postdoc societies, PhD societies
 * Social media via FB and twitter
 * Two of the journal's current submissions are for external review of chemistry-related articles (Lead and Radiocarbon dating), so if you'd be interested in helping to contact potential academic peer reviewers for them, let me know. Finally, definitely share the info around people you know in your department, We're keen to both grow the editorial board, and reach out to people who's be interested to submit articles.
 * T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Biotic pump for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Biotic pump 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 Articles for deletion/Biotic pump 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this nomination to my attention. Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi
If you find time for it could you take a look at my recent noms at TAFI Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. Would appreciate no matter what !vote as no one is attending the TAFI nom page anymore to give input. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a look as requested unfortunately I tend to focus on the sciences and don't know much about the areas you are nominating for so can't really vote either way. EvilxFish (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Trillateration article changes
Hi,

About your statement on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration article:

you > deleted info due to it being original work also one requires 4 not 3 points for 3D trilateration...

Can you please link to this work? Unfortunatelly that information on the article was pretty good and the current page is so lacking, maybe I can do something to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbrunno (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi first off please can you sign you comments by typing "~ ~ ~ ~" (without the spaces). So the primary reason for deletion was the fact the work was original and uncited. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and therefore information such as that deleted by me in the article must have appropriate citations, with secondary sources being preferable. I did look for some before deleting the information however I couldn't find any appropriate ones, if you can please feel free to add them. With regards to trilateration needing 4 points, and I hasten to add this is a relatively minor point compared to the lack of appropriate citations, if one is trying to determine the position of a point in 3D space based simply on the distance to reference points, if only 3 points are present they will lie on the same 2D plane. This means there will be ambiguity in determining the position (it could be either side of the plane) and therefore 2 answers for the position exist. Now this isn't such an issue within the specific field of GPS as the guy/gal has to be on the earth but in general one requires 4 points (with the 4th point not lying on the same 2D plane as the other three) in order to resolve this ambiguity. I hope that makes sense, now if one only considers 2D (circles not spheres) then yes one only needs 3 points to uniquely determine a position. If I had an appropriate source to reference for the article I would have already added it but I am sure you can see the issue. EvilxFish (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Accidental logged-out edit
Heads up, I spotted your edit summary on my watchlist and revdel'd it since it revealed your IP. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you much obliged EvilxFish (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Species...
Hi Evilxfish, I read of your interest in species. Me too I was made aware of those articles, and my worries are mainly mass created basic stubs. Maybe you could include a publishing threshold in your essay? Like an article needs to have at least a certain amount of phrases/information before publishing? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Paradise Chronicle Hey, thanks for reaching out and I am working on the essay, I have most of it planned out just need to sit down and write it when I have time (hopefully soon). I did consider that but I think the best solution lies in suspending the assumption of NEXIST, which currently exists for all species articles, that way bots scraping databases can't be suitable and one needs to including appropriate coverage in order to justify the articles existence, rather than rely on the assumption that suitable coverage does indeed exist. I will be sure to provide good justification when I write it up. EvilxFish (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation good enough?
Back in December 2017 you added a "citation needed" template to Calx (regarding the phlogiston theory that calx, not metal, was the true elemental form). I've cited 'A Dictionary of Chemistry' with a bit more detail. Does this satisfy your requirement? – . Raven .talk 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

USAF organizational actions
Earlier this year, you edited 738th Radar Squadron to change "inactivate" to "deactivate." "Inactivate" is the proper term for organizational actions for USAF units. See the glossary in or  Lineagegeek (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for pointing this out, sorry I probably thought it was just a grammar error when I made the edit. EvilxFish (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nissan TD engine
Hi, you weighed in at this deletion discussion and suggested you'd be interested in revisiting when more sources have been added. I just submitted a draft at Draft:Nissan TD engine; hopefully this will suffice to restore this useful article. Thanks,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contribution. I will be sure to take a look this weekend! EvilxFish (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not the most compelling engine in automotive history, but it had a role. Best, Mr.choppers (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)