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) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: 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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Please explain how this article improves upon our existing content in Cosmic_microwave_background#Polarization. What do you think is missing in our current content that this draft will fix?

The draft section "Importance" should be renamed. It has no content or references on the "importance" of the topic. It seems to be about decoupling, in which case it should be a summary style section approximately one paragraph long followed by discussion that connects decoupling to the topic.

The draft section "Causes of decoupling of matter and radiation" should be removed. Any content that is helpful for readers should be included in Decoupling (cosmology). The draft should have a section on the cause of CMB E/B polarization which is the article topic, not the cause of decoupling.

There are a lot of references on the cosmological measurements of E/B mode polarization that are in our current content and which are essential to the topic. The possibility of these measurements is what makes the polarization "important" and yet they are not mentioned in the draft.

To be honest I'm puzzled by this proposal. This is a highly technical subtopic of a highly technical field which touches on general relativity, electromagnetic radiation, and cosmology. Summarizing this topic is a real challenge. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton @TheLonelyPather @Ldm1954 Thanks - sincere regards for your taking out time to pen your detailed feedback - it really helps as I too fully agree that this is a challenging subject but therein lies the beauty of the need.

To answer your two main queries:

1. How is this different or better than current CMB article - please note this article is never meant to be an improvement over that article - instead it is meant to INITIATE an article about E and B MODES - which has relevance not just to CMB - but to even neutrino background too - which is already mentioned in the article.

Kindly view this draft as an effort on E and B MODES - and not about CMB - which is why I have tried to integrate cosmology epochs, sequence of neutrino and photon decoupling and finally the information that neutrino background detection also currently appears to be coupled to certain changes expected in microwave backgrounds? But that doesn't mean everthing can be considered or clubbed under CMB.

2. And your 2nd point - that there are many more references and possibilities which exist but are not in this presently - WELL I NEVER SAID that I am an owner of this draft - please do go ahead and spruce up - I would be really grateful for my own further learning about same as would others on Wikipedia - be it chopping some section OR rephrasing something as a paragraph etc. as you suggest.

But atleast let's make a start somewhere - just by remaining silent or avoiding admittance to a case of some good faith error in the past decline would not help the cause of Wikipedia and it's contributors. Jn.mdel (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok sorry I am even more confused.

• "Kindly view this draft as an effort on E and B MODES - and not about CMB"

Please review Wikipedia:Notability.

Please provide reliable secondary references that would justify an article with the topic you wish to write about. The reason I am asking in this specific way is to try to figure out what topic you wish to cover. It is impossible for me to guess. Your first draft for review was entirely about CMB. But now you say it is not. The phrase "E and B MODES" is ambiguous and one or more specific references will clear up this key point. Furthermore such references will be perfect to justify the article creation. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Now it is my turn to get confused because you have very rightly linked to the very 1st original draft - but you are saying it was all about CMB - which somehow I am unable to see in this same link that you are referring also - can you clarify a bit how / where in which lines of this original draft are you reading that the article is only about CMB?

And mind you the decline reason stated (not by you) was - "contrary to purpose of Wikipedia" - and that we already have "Polarization (waves)" article - and surprisingly this article does not talk about E and B modes of polarisation even till today Jn.mdel (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• "can you clarify a bit how / where in which lines of this original draft are you reading that the article is only about CMB?

Sure. All 5 references in the first draft are about CMB. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton@TheLonelyPather @Ldm1954 Dear John - despite full respects for all your very valuable inputs right till date, I would beg to humbly differ from your reply and state that I find your logic quite flawed - it is like turning everything over the head by putting the cart before the horse.

How can you interpret that because the first draft for review contained linked references which mention about CMB - so the article is about CMB??? I completely fail to appreciate this flawed logic.

If this is the method to review a draft article submission - by only looking at the last references - and not the article writeup - then why do you not also see the original submission comments which are also logged with this same referred first draft that - "Adding article to explain E and B modes - especially relevant to CMB and gravitational waves study".

Infact if I go by your logic - then even the current updated version's all the 12-13 references - would somewhere or the other mention about CMB in their respective detailed contents (as the article is about related concepts) - but then these same references also talk about potential for detecting gravitational waves too by studying E and B modes - so then does your logic now make this article to be about "Gravitational waves" - meaning how far can we stretch this logic to either support your argument or maybe simply to stand-in for @TheLonelyPather's earlier possibly good-faith oversight - when the draft was declined "ASSUMING" that it is about "Polarization (waves)" - whereas that article does not even talk of these modes. Jn.mdel (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your question here is:

• "How can you interpret that because the first draft for review contained linked references which mention about CMB - so the article is about CMB???"

As I explained earlier, all articles in wikipedia must be WP:Notable. To be notable there must be reliable sources. Without reliable sources, there is no article. All of your sources are about CMB. Consequently the article is about CMB.

Everything in the article needs to be verifiable. That means everything needs a reliable reference. You can't write about anything that is not in a reliable reference. Consequently it is the references that define the topic. Wikipedia articles are summaries of existing sources.

I cannot look inside your head and read what topic you have in mind. I can only read what you wrote and most of what you wrote was about CMB.

At this point progress depends upon you identifying those specific references which make the topic of this article notable. That will identify the topic at least. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton@Ldm1954@TheLonelyPather John - you don't need to do any crystal ball gazing or look into one's head to guess - but first things first - need to see the title of the the contributor's article, see the submission comments of the contributor and most importantly see the content of the article - which has its linked references.

Then maybe your question comes - does the draft article (first draft for review OR the current draft Draft:Polarization E and B modes) contain any emphasis only about CMB - the answer is a big NO because the article talks ONLY about E and B modes with references.

You are probably overlooking all of above and sticking by your original view only - which is partially shaped by @TheLonelyPather own confusion earlier while declining earlier thinking it is about "Polarisation (waves)" and now sitting quietly - maybe self-convincing that it is a sign of neutrality - instead of correcting a mistake - quite convenient. Jn.mdel (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ping me (that is send me a direct message) until you are ready to provide reliable references for your topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton@Ldm1954@TheLonelyPather Dear John - I was almost expecting that this would be finally coming that "dont talk to me" till you toe my line - anyways I have still gone ahead and now added a complete new section on "Measurements" with relevant additional "reliable references" - which also talk about CMB again - but hopefully you would soon realise/understand that all these references are talking about something which is known today with fair certainty (CMB) - which is measured/detected in terms of E and B modes (which is the nomenclature as of today for measuring/detecting any of the radiation modes - it could be CMB, it could be neutrino background, it could be gravitational waves, it could be infra-red, it could be x-ray - as is evident in the existing Cosmic background radiation article) - so all these radiations would currently be always in terms of these same two modes only (or some further derivations) - but that in now way means that everything is only about CMB.

Anyways, I myself have gained so much in trying to first reason with myself in order to be able to explain or respond to all yours and others feedbacks - atleast that is my way of looking at all this positively.

You have almost like arm-twisted me into adding this new section on "Measurements" - which I have quoted from references (even though I may not fully understand these formulaes).

Actually, my understanding of wikipedia is/was that it is meant to be a gateway for everyone like me to be exposed / reach out for topics which are in the realm of respective specialisations - so that one can still gain a small window into a basic understanding of a topic being sought - and hence, atleast the "Wikipedia" articles always need to be in an approachable common language - which is easy to understand by most - because the researchers already do have many avenues for publishing or discussing their researches - and Wikipedia is not the platform to advance researches - it is instead meant to provide some answers for a "search - but maybe not for specialised "research". Jn.mdel (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to add to my last message to you - that I have now added references for x- ray radiation and it's polarisation modes too vis-a-vis E and B modes - hope this merits your time now Jn.mdel (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please post on this page 1-3 references that you believe define the topic. That is what I am asking for. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton@Ldm1954@TheLonelyPather Dear John - as per your ask, I have now added more references - this time it is about Cosmic Infrared Background Polarisation modes (called as CIB- E and B modes) and also about current research for similar in Gamma Ray Bursts Polarisation too - you can see the updated section of "Cosmic Background Radiation Polarisation" in the draft - which now has not 1-3 additional new references you asked for - but atleast 6 new further references.

This is in addition to the Cosmic X-Ray Background Polarisation modes information added yesterday - as well as the new "Measurement" sub-heading also.

All this is only to re-emphasise that CMB - which is measured/detected in terms of E and B modes (which is the nomenclature as of today for measuring/detecting any of the radiation modes - or even gravitational waves - it could be CMB, it could be neutrino background, it could be infra-red background, it could be x-ray background - as is evident in the existing Cosmic background radiation article) - so all these would eventually be in terms of these same modes (or further derivations) - but that in no way means that everything is only about CMB.

I am now beginning to lose faith that @TheLonelyPather's actions are good-faith oversight - because "good-faith" means a person is willing to admit and roll-back a genuine mistake. And here the concerned reviewer is choosing to remain inaccessible for no reasons - despite my even having posted a one-liner on their talkpage to comment and roll-back the earlier error. Jn.mdel (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please remove me from this discussion Ldm1954 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not and I have not been asking you to add references to your draft. I am asking you to post below this line 1-3 references that define your topic. I do not intend to look at your draft until that happens. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear John - I am posting 3-4 references as desired which convey the extent of the topic :

1. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9013

2. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1510.06042

3. https://ixpe.msfc.nasa.gov/creation.html

4. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..93l5029M/abstract

Look to hear your feedback. Jn.mdel (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is my feedback:

1. Feng, C., & Holder, G. (2020). Polarization of the cosmic infrared background fluctuations. The Astrophysical Journal, 897(2), 140. This primary reference concerns the infrared frequency range. 10 citations. It may be worth a mention, but not sufficiently notable to base an article on.
2. Kamionkowski, M., & Kovetz, E. D. (2016). The quest for B modes from inflationary gravitational waves. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54(1), 227-269. Review with over 470 references. Excellent choice.
3. "IXPE: Polarization Creation". ixpe.msfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2024-10-17. One page from NASA describing polarization and its application to X-Ray astronomy. Good choice for characterizing the target of the article.
4. Mohammadi, R., Khodagholizadeh, J., Sadegh, M., & Xue, S. S. (2016). B-mode polarization of the CMB and the cosmic neutrino background. Physical Review D, 93(12), 125029. Primary reference with 13 citations focused on cosmic neutrino background. Maybe worth a mention but not sufficiently notable for an article.

Based on these references I believe the article you want to create should be called "Polarization (cosmology)". The mechanisms for detecting astronomical polarization and the possible natural origins are sufficiently distinct from other forms of polarization to merit a separate article in my opinion. Avoiding the term "mode" in the title avoids confusing your topic with general electromagnetism. Following the pattern of #3 above, the article would include some background on the physics of polarization and the cosmological phenomena expected to create polarized radiation.

Do you agree with my analysis? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear John - I am so happy to receive this positive, integrative feedback that I am in the right direction - but maybe not with the right title. I fully agree with your suggestion to rename this to "Polarization (cosmology)" - this is even better than the alternative I had in mind "Cosmic Background Radiation Polarization". I sincerely and humbly request you to please rename this as i do not have the access to do so. I am so happy for all the students you would have taught in your career for having such an understanding and receptive teacher - more importantly willing to patiently hearout if someone is requesting incessantly. My deep gratitude and respects to you. Jn.mdel (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Per the discussion above I moved the draft to Draft:Polarization (cosmology). @Jn.mdel As you decided to change to a new topic, which may be notable, the former rejection no longer applies to the draft. When you submit it to new page review another editor will review it. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A big thanks to you for doing this - I only hope you too believe in the draft article now and the sincere efforts towards enhancing the same. Jn.mdel (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Draft:Polarization E and B modes. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Your edit to Draft:Polarization E and B modes has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi could you please guide me what is wrong and where? I am not too familiar with the "attribution template" etc. - and I am very willing to mention sources - infact have mentioned the source almost everywhere in the draft already - so am I still missing something? Please guide - because I got a 2nd message even before I got a chance to understand what am I am supposed to do about the 1st message - meaning how does one assign attribution template. etc. etc. - I would be really grateful if some can help me do this for me - I can keep pointing out the source of the information whatever I am asked - is it possible? A lot of thanks in advance Jn.mdel (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also - one more line - "It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles..." - what does this mean? Jn.mdel (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have removed also some content - because your remark say "remove copyright content copied mostly from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2016.11.001" - but I think you have unknowingly removed more and not just from this source - because this source was only about Gamma Bursts - while currently even the entire paragraph on CIB is also missing - which was from a different source and was already given separately !!! Could you please recheck and revert regarding this - and then point out which lines seem to a culprit and what is the step expected from my end - and I would do the needful - thanks. Jn.mdel (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed two paragraphs. The iThenticate report actually shows material was copied from more than one source. If you would like to view the removed content for yourself, go to the CopyPatrol report. Log in to CopyPatrol (upper right corner), and the iThenticate link will be revealed. Click on that, and you will be asked to agree with Turnitin's terms of service, and then the comparison report will load. The reports sometimes are slow to load.

Regarding copying from licensed material: it's okay to copy if the license is compatible, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. We typically add an attribution template: {{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}} for example. It should be tacked on at the end of your citation. Go to WP:Compatible license for a list of compatible licenses. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clarifying. I could log into the report and yes I agree that those materials are from the quoted sources - the matching is absolutely correct. Infact if I remember correctly i have added these same very references at respective paragraphs also. I apologise if I have not done on some specific lines - but that is because I thought that at the end of the paragraphs means applicable for the entire patagraph. So yes I accept none of the prose is mine - so please revert the omitted paragraphs and I would copy-paste the references multiple times over within those respective paragraphs also. I am requesting you to do this revert as I am unable to figure out how to do it myself although I can see the the report - but where to click next??? Jn.mdel (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Or alternatively am I supposed to myself copy-paste the removed material again from this patrol report and add references more frequently this time? Meaning what is the process? - please guide. Also if you revert then it would be easier because then I just need to copy-paste my already existing references itself multiple times over - but simultaneously the work done in cross-linking technical terms in those two paragraphs to other Wikipedia articles would be saved/restored - so would be a little relief Jn.mdel (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure I understand your questions. It seems to me that you are wondering how to remove the copyvio content? You don't have to, because I already did that step. Your second paragraph seems to imply that if you added more citations, it would no longer be a copyright violation? That's not true. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words, not copied from your sources, unless the source is public domain or compatibly licensed. Even then, proper attribution is required. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clarifying - i think i understood where the problem originates. Actually during the reviews, I was asked to quote references on almost every paragraph and every sentence OR risk being labelled as WIKIPEDIA:OR. Hence, I thought I am supposed to be quoting verbatim from sources and that is what I did in this particular instance(s) and so even had no inhibition in admitting the same that the prose is not mine. Now I get your different perspective and so would add the removed information in own words alongwith sufficient references to the sources as already done elsewhere. Thanks a lot for responding - and please do let me know if my above understanding is still missing something. Jn.mdel (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)