User talk:Hallenrm

I am Rakesh Mohan Hallen. I am above 50 and taken up science communication as my vocation. I hold a doctrate degree in Chemistry from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur India and have authored over a hundred articles in popular science magazines.

I like wikipedia and | hypography science forums, they offer me an opportunity to futroo, an activity I cherish.Charlie 11:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Energy
Hi Hallenrm, thanks for the note on my page and sorry I haven't answered earlier, haven't had time to edit lately. No problem reverting me on the energy article. I'm going to add a little more to the intro; the article really needs a simple, clear definition of physical work. --Sullevon 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits to my changes in Energy
You wrote: I have been activly editing the energy page. I noticed your recent edits. However, I have some minor differences in opinion. In my opinion there is no need for detailed explanations, providing links to pages that have the required information should be sufficient.

In addition, I believe I have more experience than you regarding communicating this topic to the general reader.Charlie 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Having published a dozen articles in popular science magazines myself, I’m not impressed. Most of the publications (the smaller ones, which all but a very few are) pay little or nothing per word, and it’s fairly easy to write well enough to “work” for them, for nearly free, or actually free. If you’ve actually made a writer’s living working for Discover or Scientific American or Popular Science or Wired, then I’ll be impressed with your “credentials” as a writer. But I doubt that you have. On the other hand, if you’ve merely spent more time than I have, doing what is essentially volunteer work for smaller editors of smaller popular publications, then that only means you’ve wasted more of your life doing this, than I have. I hate to tell you this, but if you haven’t made a living at it (popular writing), then all this extra experience is with marshmellow editors of small publications, as an amateur. So what? That’s like saying you’ve played more golf than I have, implying therefore that you’re more of an "expert" on golf. Let me know how much you’ve made on the pro circuit.


 * I do have a degree in chemistry and one in medicine, and a list of academic papers and patents, so I’m reasonably confident that I can communicate well enough to make myself understood. Beyond that, this is Wikipedia, where it’s every editor for himself. You can’t live here on your laurels. If you ruthlessly prune other people’s writing according to your personal philosophy of economy of style, you’re going to soon find yourself eventually on the other end of that unpleasant experience. So be nice.


 * There are several philosophies of writing these articles. One of them is that articles should always generally stand by themselves, for the large class of readers who aren’t going to bother to click on the hundreds of internal links they may contain. One could easily write an article on energy (physics) which was not much more than the present disambiguation page for energy. Why indeed do anything else?


 * For the reader who is trying to seek a overview of physics energy, and the role it plays in transforming the world, without reading every sub-topic article mentioned, it is probably necessary to put in something of why energetic processes do what they do. That is what I have been attempting to do. It hardly helps in this process if you revert my edits and stick in references to entropy and free energy. Not only don’t most people understand these topics, but they won’t understand them very much better even after reading the Wiki’s on them (these lack non-technical overviews also, and need their own rewrites). So what you’re doing, is damaging.


 * I’ll give you an example. You’re reverted the article to say that biological processes are driven by “transformations” of energy. That conveys no information at all. You might as well say changes in biology are driven by “change”. We have energy transformations. So what drives the TRANSFORMATIONS?? You cannot discuss this without discussing the mechanism of entropy, whether you want to use the name or not. I propose that the idea of what is happening, when entropy increases during an energetic transformation, can be communicated generally and non-mathematically, without bringing entropy up, except peripherally. If you don’t do that, you end up just pointing people to the entropy page, and leaving them with a mystery.


 * You left the discussion of chemistry saying that free energy was an “interplay” of energy and entropy. You claim to love generality and fundamentality, but fundamentally, this is NOT the most general way to understand chemical changes, or free energy. Just because there’s one term in one kind of free energy equation that contains energy (or heat), and another one that contains a term for entropy, does not mean that two separate processes are working. Rather, the heat term is only there because of what that heat does to entropy. Likewise, all the other terms in all the various equations for Gibbs and Helmholz free energy, all are there because of what they do to changes in entropy. So, entropy is the way to understand these processes, and all the energetic transformations in chemistry also. We only need to choose if we have to (or want to) go through all that statistical thermodynamics for our gentle reader. No? Then, should we merely refer our gentle reader to the statistical thermo Wiki article? I say, also, no. That doesn't help the general reader. But the way things are in this article doesn’t help the general reader, either. Sbharris 00:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Rmh2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rmh2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 12:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read up on physical sciences
"I really cannot understand you, all of a sudden after several months, you decide to pop up and carry out unneccesary edits. For example, what prompted you to edit out the first paragraph. The article on energy does not belong solely to physics (or physical science) as is abundantly clear in its contents. It is about a concept in science, which includes biology, geology meterology just to count a few. If you are solely obssessed with physics, please control your impulses.Charlie 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)".

I have spent several months letting you and others sort out what you want to do with the energy article. Okay. However, it still needs lots of work. I did not write "physics," but "physical sciences," which of course are not the same thing, as you should very well know as a science writer, and (if not) as you'd discover if you merely read the wiki on physical sciences. The latter term is inclusive of physics and includes geology and meteorology. Apparently you didn't realize this. Also it includes chemistry, and other earth sciences like hydrology, oceanography, soil science, and so on. And planetary sciences and all of astronomy, of course. The term doesn't include the social sciences or political sciences, but in this case we don't want it to. The one place where energy is used in "joules" but which isn't covered by "physical sciences" would be certain "life sciences". It would have been so nice if you'd just suggested adding that, instead of just misusing the English language, which is what you are here doing, not I. As for whether my edits are "necessary" or not, that is not up to you to judge. We've been over that. If you insist on misusing or misunderstanding common English, making reflexive edits, and then following them with insulting comments on other editors' TALK pages, you're going to get yourself into trouble on Wikipedia. So this is another warning. This is your LAST warning from me. Stop it. SBHarris 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy
User:Sbharris has asked me on my talk page at User talk:Bduke to try to help in the disagreement you are having on this article. I will try to help if you will allow me. This is an article that is not on my watch list so it is new to me. I ask you to reply on my talk page and the debate can go on there. It is getting late at night here and I am rather exhausted as last night was too hot to sleep well. I am therefore asking you and User:Sbharris to both try to state clearly on my talk page what you think the problem with this article is and why you are disagreeing. Could you please do that? I will try to help tomorrow or whenever I get your views. I really am not sure that you are far apart. There is often an artificial difference between how chemists and physicists think. Please try to remain civil to each other. --Bduke 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Energy is very confusing. Consider:
 * Some energy can be released as a result of rearrangement of bonds between atoms of a chemical substance (or a mixture thereof) only if the energy in the reactant chemical substances is more than that in product substances. Thus, in chemical thermodynamics the term used for the chemical potential energy is chemical potential and for chemical transformation an equation most often used is Gibbs-Duhem equation.

You added the second sentence. The first is talking about internal energy (U). The second is talking about chemical potential which is related to the Gibbs Free Energy (G). There is therefore no "Thus" about it. Your sentence does not follow from the first and is actually talking about something completed different. The sentence after the Gibbs-Duhem equation "However, the change in internal energy can also be construed as the change in chemical potential energy" is true only if chemical potential energy is used in the sense of this article, i.e. as internal energy and not as the chemical potential which is different. Roughly, spontaneous process go with a decrease in chemical potential, but that can be with an increase in internal energy - i.e. an endothermic reaction. The point about the Gibbs-Duhem equation and the chemical potential does need to be mentioned somewhere, but not here and then more as a "do not confuse this use of chemical potential energy with the chemical potential". --Bduke 07:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied on my talk page, to keep the discussion in one place after you kindly copied my initial point there. --Bduke 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy
Hi, Rakesh. I am indeed interested in improving the energy article and I do think respecting the opinions of other editors is important. I did make considerable edits to the article to remove information that was (a) redundant, and/or came too early in the article (Wikipedia as very good guidelines about what should go in a lead); (b) vague, unsourced, or overly complicated; or (c) entirely devoid of concrete information. I also changed the Greek etymology which (a) did not go back to the real root word and (b) was not displaying properly on any computer I looked at it from. I look forward to discussing with you appropriate ways to improve this article through the consensus process, which I think is turning into a major challenge. Robert K S 10:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted the article again. I'll try a new approach.  I'll make the changes I initially made, one at a time, with the rationale for each in the comment field.  Where that is not sufficient, I will start a new section on the article's talk page.  This should make it easier for us to discuss individual modifications to the lead.  Also, I'll take it slow, only making several modifications per day.  Will this be acceptable to you?  Robert K S 11:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: "No one can escape the truth in life"... I can only direct you to read the Wikipedia sections and essays on verifiability.  Wikipedia is not about publishing truth or escaping from it.  It's about writing well-sourced, verifiable encyclopedia articles.  With regards to your first message to me, which read, "...shouldn't you respect the opinions of other editors too who have contributed before you? In other word isn't a brief discussion called for; with minor edits?", you might want to read the Wikipedia article about Ownership of articles, which states, "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and allow them to do so."  Again, I respect the opinions of other editors and support discussion.  However, your persistent reversions and limited demonstrations of compromise on the energy article lead me to think you might have taken up feelings of ownership over this article.  Your most recent edit to the energy lead reduced the lead's length in accordance with your stated belief that "brevity is the key" to a successful lead.  Unfortunately, this is mistaken, and indeed there are good guidelines about lead sections, including how long they should be.  In the case of the energy article, it is classified as a long article, and so its lead is recommended to be "three or four paragraphs".  "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any"--the current lead does not do all these things.  You might also explore the helpful guidlelines for writing about concepts, particularly relevant in the case of energy.  All the best, Robert K S 11:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Energy is the new Core Topics Collaboration
Thanks for already doing a lot! I note that there has been some editorial disagreement recently, so please be polite and work via consensus. Let's hope we can make it a GA! Thanks, Walkerma 04:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration
I am writing to ask you to consider using the talk pages more frequently. You are undertaking the large task of splitting and trimming articles related to energy, but other editors are also free to assist, and their contributions are as welcome as yours. In order to find a wider consensus on wording, layout, etc., it will be necessary to discuss your changes on the relevant talk pages.

I have left a question at Talk:Energy(Physics) about the names of these articles. It appears to me that the content that is currently at Energy should merge with the content at Energy (disambiguation). Also, page names like Energy(Physics) need to have a space added and the word Physics set in lowercase to conform with the manual of style. CMummert · talk 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fixing the names myself, actually. DS 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My goal here is to get everyone to work together, so that they don't keep coming to ask others for help settling content disagreements. My request for you to discuss changes on talk pages was genuine; you do not seem to have made even one comment on any article talk page since a week ago. You should also make sure to read the edit warring guideline. The best way to avoid the appearance of edit warring is by discussing rather than reverting changes you don't agree with. CMummert · talk 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

scibd.com
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * You may see some of my writings at scibd.com
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warning.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. --Hu12 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its all very fine, I have gone through all the pages that you have cited, but I still do not understand, how this links comes under those points. At best, it comes under the section [onself]. The links in question are no doubt my articles, one was published in a CBT pubkication "Children's World" and the other is a result of amalgamating several articles that I wrote for a Science magazine published from New Delhi Science Reporter, both of these articles have been very popular among the visitors of Wikipedia, presumably they are young children, who visit Wikipedia in the hope that they may find useful information. Unfortunately, the articles are invariably dominated by acadmicians whose primary interest in not promoting understanding amongst children of various hues. In the light of the above facts, I believe a link to such articles is not really self promotion (for any profit) after all I do not derive any income from the number of viewers, my interests are purely educational.Hallenrm 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly this is about promoting your own articles on a site you write for, "profit" or otherwise. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and in this case conflict of interest. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia.--Hu12 06:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Energy
This is your first warning. I see that you're new to Wikipedia. Your actions, however, have caused a major disruption at the energy article. Never again convert any science article at Wikipedia to a disambig page or move any major science article as you did with your energy to energy (physics) move. In any event, I have volunteered to clean up the mess you have made. More than four people agree with me. You have reverted me twice now. If you continue in this direction, you will be banned from editing the energy article. We are presently forming a committee to decide on your actions. If you continue to cause problems at other science articles, you will then be banned from Wikipedia. Please work with us rather than against us. Wikipedia is a community project. Again, this is your first warning from me; hopefully it will be the last and we can write a nice energy article together. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have responded to your comment on my talk page; I was not the one who made the move which sidelined the page version you liked. However, I do not agree with this warning despite the message you've left on my talk page, and it is quite unlikely that you will be banned from anything for your actions here unless you engage in tendentious editing in the future. It is not strictly your fault that your actions have been construed as disruptive here. On the other hand, it would be helpful if you would acknowledge that consensus has been achieved in this particular case and it would be helpful to have you continue to contribute within the bounds of the general agreements that have been reached at Talk:Energy. Dekimasu よ! 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Contesting proposed deletions
I noticed that you disagree with the proposed deletion of the articles Energy (biology) etc. The correct way to express that is by removing the template (as it catually says.) indicating clearly in the edit sumarry e.g. by "DEPROD:..." For further information about this, please refer to above cited guideline. --Tikiwont 12:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Energy (chemistry)
A few observations. As I understand Energy articles proposal straw poll addressed everything but Energy (biology), Energy (chemistry), Energy (earth science), etc. becomming part of the Energy overview since Sadi Carnot excluded that proposal from the discussion by posting "Basically yes, except for point (3); we'll have to see that bridge when we cross it." The Energy (chemistry) has no references. If you really want to keep Energy (chemistry), you will need to provide references. I suggest using in-line citations (footnotes) from whatever is the most respected Wikipedia reliable sources on the topic Energy (chemistry). There are a lot of people interested in the Energy article and significant unilateral actions on such an article usually are not well received. Laura Scudder seems to have a clear headed view on the matter. I place a post on her talk page to request her assistance. Also, check out Wikipedia:How to break up a page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Energy (chemistry)
An article you created, Energy (chemistry), was nominated for deletion. Although your contributions are appreciated, an editor does not feel that Energy (chemistry) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; an explaination for this is in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Energy (chemistry) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Energy (chemistry) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee  (Talk) 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Chemical energetics
I noticed that you moved my contributions in this subsection to chemical thermodynamics please explain your rationale for doping so.Hallenrm 03:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hallenrm, you have reverted me three times now. The idea at Wikipedia is to work together.  In any standard chemistry textbook, the energy sections are listed in the chemical thermodynamics chapter.  The chemistry article is pushing 50 kb; the goal is to keep all articles at about 32 kb, the tension-span length of the average internet reader.  I was attempting to reorganize the material you added in this direction.  Now that you have reverted this, please go back and fix the changes you made, i.e. write a one to two paragraph summary (similar in size to the other chemistry article headers: “chemical bond”, “chemical reaction”, etc., and move the rest of the energy material to other specific articles: spectroscopy, thermochemistry, chemical energetics, free energy, etc.  Thank you for your cooperation. --Sadi Carnot 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful comments. But I hope you recall your actions in context of the Energy article which was similarly getting far to big (and it still is) and you and your friends vehemently my attempts to trim it by minor restructuring. I have already trimmed the Chemistry article close to the KB level after your mindless move that was just am action of vengenance (and I don't know, Why)Hallenrm 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry did you just call me “mindless”? Please, save the insults for someone not at Wikipedia and do us all a favor and leave Wikipedia. --Sadi Carnot 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your asking me to leave
This is regarding your recent message on my talk page, asking me to leave; this is after your concerted effort in conspiring to get me banned. Let me inform you that I am a master of my own and do not take such suggestions from anybody. May I ask you what is your authority on the wikipedia to dole out such suggestions. It is as much uncivil as my terming one of your edits mindless ( Inever called you mindless in general), which it was because you did not apply your mind before carrying out your action which was just out of vengeance.Hallenrm 06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Get this straight, firstly: I have no issues with you. Second, you be nice to me and I will be nice to you; the same goes for everyone else at Wikipedia.  Third, please do not make any assumptions about what my intentions are or are not.  Fourth, my focus in Wikipedia is in science articles in general, but with special interest in the thermodynamics, heat, energy, and chemistry related articles; thus, when you converted one of these articles into a disambiguation page, this obviously attracted my attention.  This issue, however, seems to be solved: we now have an article on energy (I am short on time presently, and hence I pulled out of the energy article issue when I saw the problem being solved).


 * Lastly, as to my comment about leaving: if you continue to call me mindless, I will continue to suggest that you leave. If, however, you begin to use civil language in discussions, then I will have no problems.  As to reverts, you have reverted me 3 times total (twice at the energy article and once at the chemistry) in Wikipedia: a good rule of thumb is not to revert a seasoned science editor (someone who’s been here for more than a year), but instead use the talk page to discuss why you object to the edit, and then if the editor cannot substantiate just cause, then revert or modify (preferred method).  In sum, be nice to other editors and modify or discuss other’s edits rather than reverting them.  Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 11:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Pages on the topic of homeopathy are currently under probation due to past editing problems. Please read the terms at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation and be sure to comply. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just saw your note on WP:AN. You're not banned from participating at all--I just wanted to inform you that editing on these pages is under tighter-than-usual restrictions based on recurring content and behavioral issues. My message was certainly not intended to imply that you had, in any way, violated the probation, just inform you (if you hadn't noticed) that there are current restrictions. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my prior message, for that I apologize. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

using the neutrality tag to justificate edits
Please don't use justificacions like the one here, the fact that the article is tagged as not neutral does not mean that you can make not neutral edits to it. Notice also that it's tagged non-neutral because of the second paragraph of the lead, not because of the section that you were editing. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

stop the soapboxing on Talk:Homeopathy
See my comment here. You are disrupting the talk page to make a point about drug companies. Talk pages are not for WP:SOAPBOXing your favourite point of view about stuff. Please read WP:TALK wikipedia guideline on using talk pages

Please remember that the homeopathy pages are under probation. Consider this a formal warning: if you keep trying to use to soapbox, I'll have to ask that you are placed under a topic ban.

Notice that you won't be allowed to make on these pages things that you can calmly do on less-controversial pages. The fact that this happens shortly after the New Scientific reference addition is a bad thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hallenrm, regarding your message, nobody is preventing you from believing anything you like. Just don't use the talk pages as soapboxes for your views, specially pages on probation.


 * And, please, don't wikilawyer about using newspaper articles on homeopathy as sources, since it has nothing to do with your message that I stroke out. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

and don't make comments on other editors, please
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's nice that you suggest sources for specific content, but please don't accompany them with assumptions on how other editor's POV will prevent them from evaluating them on a neutral way, like you did on this comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: Some good faith advice: notice that your suggestions will have a greater chance of being accepted if you present them on a neutral way. About the comment you made, next time please think of writting only the first sentence to introduce the source, and refraining from adding commentaries that are not strictly about improving the article with the source. That helps towards getting your suggestions accepted, collaborating constructively with other editors, having a good ambient on the talk page that helps on collaborating, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please discontinue
It's my opinion that your actions regarding Homeopathy are becoming disruptive. While you certainly differ in your opinions than some editors, I think the inappropriate nature of some of your edits is quite evident: Asserting that other editors hold bias each time they revert your inappropriate edits does nothing to endear anyone. If you have a problem with any of my statements or actions, please take them up with me directly, dispensing with the melodramatic charges of bias, naturally. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have made several comments that are divisive or outright insulting towards other editors
 * You've removed text that was clearly within the cited quote, attempted to pass off a blog as a reliable source, and asserted that since "neutrality is already in dispute" it's apparently appropriate to add more non-neutral text(?!)
 * You've added so-called "neutral comments" that are hardly neutral, not to mention demonstrably inaccurate.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Scirep.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Scirep.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

July 2010
Unfortunately, this is a repeat warning regarding the use of links to your own work as reference sources. Wikipedia's reliable sources policy discourages this, as does the conflict of interest policy. Please stop, as Wikipedia is not intended as a site for self-promotion, and such actions can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you feel that your work is suitable, you should seek input from other editors who do not have the same conflict of interest. Thank you in advance. Ckatz chat spy  19:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ckatz for reminding, but do consider the fact that the articles that i linked are not my sole opinion, they reflect the opinions of many reputed persons on topics that are not related to basic science. They are in fact topics that are much under debate and development, and a larger variety of opinions will do harm. That is my belief.Hallenrm (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You cannot add links to your own writings, especially not as reference sources. Please stop, as this behaviour is not permitted. --Ckatz chat spy  08:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You must appreciate that I am very honest. I can do exactly the same if I am logged under a fictitious name, or publish the articles under a different name. How can wikipedia control that? The point is whether my addition is a substantive and reasonable, not whether the article was published under my name. I think you are being unnecessarily fussy! And your comments are a very narrowminded interpretation of the professed policies of wikipedia.Hallenrm (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your honesty is appreciated, of course. However, that does not mean that you can still do what you are doing. Please stop using Wikipedia to promote your own work. --Ckatz chat spy  08:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Your honesty and attempts to improve wikipedia are appreciated, but your addition of statements and references to personal essays is not (no matter where they originate from). As this is becoming a mass addition, it may be regarded as disruptive editing. Materialscientist (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean to say that it is OK if I do so under an assumed name hence dishonestly. If so, please consider and reply! Hallenrm (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course not, and I'm certain you already know that. --Ckatz chat spy  09:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec; to Hallenrm) On the contrary, the names of the editor and the author of an essay are irrelevant, but adding essays and links to them contradicts basic wikipedia policies. Materialscientist (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Survismeter


A tag has been placed on Survismeter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Science Reporter


A tag has been placed on Science Reporter, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How mobilephones work? listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How mobilephones work?. Since you had some involvement with the How mobilephones work? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Energy(Biology) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Energy(Biology). Since you had some involvement with the Energy(Biology) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)