User talk:Zmanish

BeF2
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you know a lot. FYI: Wikipedia does not aspire to competing with Chemical Reviews or other specialized review journals. Rather, the emphasis is on secondary (reviews) or preferably tertiary (reviews of reviews) like citations. The most useful information that you can supply is from such sources. Check out WP:SECONDARY. Related is WP:UNDUE. Ideally you will cite such sources, possibly with other articles. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Newbie/Rookie errors
Many thanks for the pointers. I _have_ been looking for other sources - for "non technical" - WP:SECONDARY articles on "Beryllium Fluoride" - some thing I have personal interest in. I do understand that Wikipedia is an excellent resource which should _not_ become like Chemical Reviews - it would defeat its primary purpose. There are Science and Nature articles which might be more appropriate. I am still looking for the same. Unfortunately I have not been able to find a way to alert me if there has been a response to my submissions.

quote Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. unquote

This is what forced me refer to the citations I had used; the statements I make usually surprise people around me: the fact the liquid Beryllium Fluoride acts very much like water - the central theme of my post - in many ways apart from the density of liquid being higher than that of solid.

I have a distinct feeling that my post sounded like a promotion of my(our) work. The Nature News and Views By Austen Angell is what I'd like to cite - please advise if this is better than the current reference.

Many Thanks, Cheerio zmanish (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)