User talk:NeedsGlasses

Henry Millicer
Hey, sorry about that... obviously had a compete brain freeze and was editing an old version! Good job you spotted. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Striation (fatigue) has been accepted
 Striation (fatigue), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Striation_(fatigue) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Proposed deletion of Outline of engineering declined
I declined you proposed deletion of Outline of engineering, as outlines are often kept for navigational purposes. This would be better sorted out at AFD. For a recent deletion discussion, see Articles for deletion/Outline of Middle-earth. Hog Farm (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Citations in Atomic Force Microscopy
Hello NeedsGlasses, I have entered important information about the application of the Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) about the mechanical unfolding of proteins using AFM, which you have deleted accusing me in the citation spam. Later I entered the same information without citations and it has been removed by another user suggesting me to add it again with relevant citations which I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDeepLerner (talk • contribs) 18:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Stress intensity factor reverted edit
Hi NeedsGlasses, I reverted your good faith edit in the Stress intensity factor page, because I do not think you should be passing judgements about claims about test commonness which was backed up by a source from the original author. While I am sure you are knowledgeable in the field a fracture mechanics, I think factual disputes should be settled with sources rather than user opinion or personal knowledge. Regards Bob Clemintime (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply: It is very difficult to ensure distributed loading in a fracture toughness test. As a result, all of the coupons recommended by the ASTM on fracture toughness testing use point loaded coupons. ASTM E1820 says "The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]." Even WP on the Fracture toughness page says "The vast majority of the tests are carried out on either compact or SENB configuration." The distributed loading coupon is not even in the section on "Stress intensity factors for fracture toughness tests" in the stress intensity factor page itself. It was obviously wrong and should be deleted. NeedsGlasses (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair points, and with the ASTM standards recommendation I have reverted my previous revert of your edit. Regards: --Bob Clemintime (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ok thanks. NeedsGlasses (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation Spamming about Dr. Kurrer
Dr. Kurrer is an internationally recognized engineering historian of the building history who has written a compendium of around 1200 pages with his book The History of the Theory of Structures: Searching for Equilibrium (Construction History), which is recognized worldwide. I don't know what Spam Citation is supposed to mean when Wikipedia articles are quoted precisely with the corresponding chapters of his book. I am sure that many people will find these pointers helpful. In the German Wikipedia no one has complained about Kurrer's references so far. And I think that also applies to the English Wikipedia. (1 or 2) more here --Nixnubix (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

deleted edits on August Kekulé
The reversion was appropriate because the removal of properly cited material was undiscussed, and its reason not adequately stated. The issue may not require third party resolution, as your point seems arguable to me, but the point needs to be put in the talk page first. Cheers. Shtove (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits to scanning probe microscopy pages
Dear NeedsGlasses,

With my edits I did respond to an explicit request by wikipedia to add links to an article I created last year because it was considered an "orphan". I assume that this request has been generated automatically, yet I think it is totally reasonable to add links to pages where it is appropriate. You are certainly aware that SPM is a very densely interconnected field. To each of the (internal) links I added the respective (external) citation of a scientifc publication (APS) exactly following the style in which each of the internal links appeared in the articles you mentiond "Scanning probe microscopy" "Atomic force microscopy" "Quantum dot" Feel free to have a look. Of course the external link is no "to a personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product". Unless you consider an original scientific article a "product".

Best regards, TomSpade79 (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello TomSpade79 (talk),
 * Thanks for the reply. The links to other wiki pages were fine. I had a problem with the insertion of the publications. Are some scientific articles considered spam. Absolutely. The main problem I most see with the wikipedia pages that I look at, is the spamming of pages by academics with their research papers. Other problems such as graffiti type vandalism and businesses pushing their products are much less. There are guidelines on spam but what defines it seems to be a combination of relevance, conflict of interest and specificity. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources of generally accepted knowledge. So new research papers on discoveries are discouraged but I believe it can be worth citing the original paper if it is a significant discovery. If its not relevant, even a link to another article in wikipedia can be spam. If there is a conflict of interest then use it very sparingly or not at all. If its too specific and some spammers like to say that its the only paper in the world that supports what they say in wikipedia then you shouldn't be using it since it not generally accepted knowledge. If multiple papers are being cited and they have a common author...well its not rocket science to work out whats going on. NeedsGlasses (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Alpha-beta model
Hi NeedsGlasses. I wonder if you might take another look at Alpha-beta model, which you redirected to Crack growth equation last month. I know nothing about the topic, so can't quibble with your rationale, but the redirect has resulted in a situation where the article isn't mentioned at the page to which it now points. As such, if someone searches for "Alpha-beta model" they're left with no indication of its meaning. Do you think it's possible to add a mention to the target to rectify that, or alternatively if there's an alternative target that would resolve that issue (Paris' law was suggested at the 2019 AfD)? If not, I wonder if it'd be best to restore the article and send it back to AfD to see if there's now a consensus for deleting it outright. Either way, interested to know what you think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Arms & Hearts, I'm afraid mentioning the model in the crack growth equation page would be giving it notoriety it does not deserve. Alpha-beta is a generic modelling term so I am quite confident that 100 % of those searching for it are not looking for a crack growth model anyway. There are many many many thousands of crack growth models. Judging by the quality of the article (even the meaningless name which is just the name of two arbitrary coefficients that could be called anything) puts this one near the bottom of the pile (and I am being kind in saying near). No it has nothing to do with the Paris equation so it would be quite wrong to mention it there. No the article should not be restored. It was entirely spam citation by one author and should never have been approved in the first place. Asking for deletion will just open it up for those who have no vested interest in the subject to 'kick the tyres'. I can see no way that will satisfy everyone. Perhaps changing the redirect to point to the disambiguation page would be better. NeedsGlasses (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I'm wary of the argument that we should avoid another AfD because the consensus might not be to our liking – consensus is how we do things; it's not perfect but, even when article topics are very technical, it's usually possible in my experience to make a compelling case (as indeed you've done above). But retargeting to the disambiguation page is an interesting idea too. Do you have any idea if any of the other items listed there – I suppose the most obvious would be alpha–beta pruning, alpha-beta transformation and/or alpha beta filter – are ever known as "alpha-beta model"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Be bold is also how we do things :) AfD is entirely up to you to instigate. I know nothing more about the alpha beta pages. I think the disambiguation page should be called Alpha-beta. There is a redirect from Alpha-beta to Alphabeta but this is the wrong way around. I don't know how to fix this. the term 'model' is sufficiently vague as to apply to pruning/transformation/filter as a generic term as well as leaving scope for more. Arbitrarily setting one page to alpha-beta model given the number of references to alpha-beta (in the wild but not so many in wikipedia) would be also be wrong. It encourages hijacking of common use terms. NeedsGlasses (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like retargeting to the dab page is the best solution then. I'll go ahead and do that. If you think that page should be moved, probably best to follow the steps at WP:RSPM, or alternatively WP:RM if you're sure the move would be uncontroversial. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Young's Modulus
Thank you for being one of those editors that makes people loathe to bother singing in or contributing to Wikipedia. It's always appreciated when rather than actually reading the edit/diff (ahem), or making adjustments to suit, wholly trashing others' work. The references were all copied from the table further down the page, and could have been removed/or trimmed if deemed necessary, but the description was absolutely correct. There were no substantive changes, only rearrangement for clarity. --174.168.158.48 (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverting edits
Hi there, I see you reverted three of my edits on force spectroscopy and another page. I do not understand why you did it. I am very familiar with the subject and the choice of wording and references were appropriate. Livingdroplet (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please do not restore the edit when you have been accused of citation spam. From your edits you appear to have a close connection with one of the authors. Inserting citations containing such a reference by you is advertising for their papers WP:SPAMMER and a clear conflict of interest by you. You should also not edit pages of people that a closely associated with you. If you know so much about the subject it should not be hard for you to find a secondary reference for the topics interest that do not contain such a conflict of interest. Please see wikipedeia guidelines on spam, conflict of interest and secondary sources NeedsGlasses (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you are apparently some one familiar with the subject and thus should be able to judge it for yourself instead of blindly reverting. There are only 4-5 papers ever published on this subject "AFS and cells"; one can include all of them, and that is not about being biased. I think a more respectful way of interactions would be better for wikipedia. If you are concerned about bias, then you can see what is missing and add it in. Are there any measurement on primary human cell out there other than those three citations? The answer is No. Removing two of them and insisting on keeping one is not appropriate. 14:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Livingdroplet (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of One World (TV series) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One World (TV series) 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/One World (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)