EnviroDaren

Welcome!

Hello, EnviroDaren, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Cold Detonation Physics, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 331dot (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cold Detonation Physics

Hello, EnviroDaren. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Cold Detonation Physics, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As a further explanation to Kudpung: the method you've described appears to be based on a patent that you filed, but you've provided no further evidence that this method has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original inventions or designs, it is a place to report on topics that have already been the subject of significant coverage elsewhere. You might wish to publish your work in a scientific journal, after which Wikipedia could rely on the editorial processes of that journal to verify that this is a viable concept. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

EnviroDaren (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Hi - EnviroDaren here: This is my first article and I appreciate your helpful suggestions regarding my page to ensure that the information meets Wikipedia's standards. I have added a few references that cite external sources dating back to 2011, including both the Canadian and US patent. I hope this suffices.

I have not just filed a patent application, I have passed the scrutiny of having the patent granted in Canada, US, Mexico, South Africa, 20 European countries, China and Japan and I assure you that was quite a rigid process including velocity of detonation measurements acquired through the Canadian Explosives Research Lab in Ottawa, Ontario. A few industrial sites have written news articles on the technology and one in Australia (Paydirt Magazine) published a hard copy article.

However, in the context that you have presented a rationale for deletion of the article, there are no peer-reviewed institutions that are capable of making a truthful assessment of the validity of my work. Unless they attempt to carry out tests themselves they will not be in the right position to make a proper determination, and the cost and complexity involved in achieving that is prohibitive as there is nothing in it for an independent third party. Merely reading the patent, for example, does not necessarily mean an expert can legitimately endorse the information contained therein.

I plan to add more information to the article, which may also be helpful from your perspective. I am planning on including some detonation videos of tests we did in China, which clearly show how varying the magnesium concentration in the magnesium formulations we shot have a direct effect on explosive performance. It's a good qualitative comparison.

Regardless, I would appreciate that this page be maintained as it contains very important information that can expand the general public's understanding of explosives mechanics outside of the traditional understanding of explosives. No pun intended, but this is ground-breaking.

Lemme know what you think - Thanks EnviroDaren (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, 331dot has let you know what they think by nominating the article for deletion. Your assertion that there are no peer-reviewed institutions capable of making an assessment of your work seems incorrect. You have performed experiments and collected data and analyzed the data to arrive at conclusions regarding your work. If you published the information in a peer-reviewed journal, the editorial staff of the journal and other readers of the journal (who are presumably equally adept in the specific field as yourself) can evaluate your information and your conclusions without needing to actually reproduce your experiments. (Of course, other scientists reproducing your results experimentally would provide a very valuable verification, and is not outside the realm of possibility. You conducted the experiments; others can too.) In any case, absent such peer-reviewed publication, it is unlikely that Wikipedia will retain such an article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Cold Detonation Physics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cold Detonation Physics 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/Cold Detonation Physics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi - as per the original instructions to delete the "article-for-deletion" notice upon providing a revision, which I have, the notice was deleted yesterday and prior to having received this more recent request to leave the notice in place. My revision was the inclusion of several online articles that were posted as early as 2011 by mining or industrial organizations, who provided some level of peer review by reviewing, endorsing and publishing the information I had provided at the time.

I wish to emphasize that the patent has been granted in 26 countries, which means gruelling peer-review by numerous groups determined the technology worthy of granting the patent. Japan and China were brutal for this - we were rejected in China and after appealing with the provision of additional test data the patent was later granted. Engineers and scientists partake in the process of disseminating patent applications and, to the best of my knowledge, patents are not granted unless the invention disclosed in the patent is valid and passes many very deep processes of thorough examination. I am not merely attempting to post unverified research that no one has reviewed, I have invented or discovered a whole new field of detonation physics that the extremely rigid patenting process has already scrutinized and endorsed.

In the context of peer review being the root to whether this page be deleted, I urge you to consider that the patenting process, which took many years to complete, should stand on its own. Therefore citing the patent should be sufficient corroborative proof of concept. A third party is not legally permitted to mix dry ice and powdered magnesium to make a determination about its detonation characteristics except under a licensing agreement because I own the intellectual property.

I ran into a similar problem in one of the countries reviewing the patent application. They were reluctant because there were no references in my application that disclosed other explosives experts having performed detonation tests with dry ice and reducing agents. Creating something new, I have learned, does not necessarily mean people who see what you create are capable of seeing what is there with authenticity.

I will withhold further revision to the page pending your decision to keep the page up on the basis of acceptance that the granted patent sufficiently addresses Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in its database. Please let me know how else I may be of assistance in your deliberation.

Best regards - Daren EnviroDaren (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute to the discussion, linked to in the deletion template(and above). 331dot (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I reversed your blanking because the Articles for Deletion template cannot be removed until the discussion is concluded- but I have added an author request deletion tag. Blanking an article does not delete it, as it is still stored in the edit history. Only an administrator can delete a page(which the tag will accomplish). 331dot (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing your post to WikiDan, I would stress that no one wants to "win" anything, certainly not me at least. What we want is for articles to conform to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially those regarding independent reliable sources and verifiability. If you can ever do that in the future, an article about your research would be welcomed- though you should submit it through Articles for Creation to mitigate the conflict of interest in writing about your own research. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The term "win" is intended in the context of winning a friendly argument. In a private message to WikiDan he brought to my attention that there is at least one bogus patent out there and therefore the reliability of patents granted cannot be accepted on their own. If that's the logic Wikipedia uses, then the debate is done. I do not want to force my opinion on anyone - I don't have the time and my efforts may incorrectly be construed as conflict, which this is not. So, "you win" versus "I concede" are merely semantics - the result is the same.

I no longer wish to press the issue and accept the feedback I have been receiving that my page does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. So - take it down. I apologize for failing to better understand your guidelines and for wasting everyone's time.

Best Regards - Daren EnviroDaren (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)