Cafkafk

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Cafkafk, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Sdrqaz (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I already love it and the way the project is being run seems amazing! I'll be sure to be in contact if I need more help! Cafkafk (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Cafkafk, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Cafkafk! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Cafkafk: re: The Flippin-Lodge Angle

I removed your tags because (1) Your assertion that the subject matter may be too complex for Wikipedia users is an unsupported and, IMO, an unwarranted opinion. If you check the references carefully you will learn that the F-L angle, and the related B-D angle, have emerged since their respective discoveries as fundamental concepts for the description of chemical reaction dynamics and both are now taught in graduate-level and undergraduate-level chemistry courses. (2) Your assertion that the introductory section is too long is an opinion that is difficult to understand, given that a clear goal of Wikipedia is to make the subject matter it treats as accessible as possible without oversimplifying. If you read the lengthy discussions of editorial changes that have been made to the F-L Angle entry over the past 10 years, you will find that several people with outstanding credentials in chemistry have worked very hard to refine the content and layout of the page. (None of them is me, and I do not know their identities except by code names and their associated, highly insightful remarks). In particular, someone named LeProf7272 obviously worked diligently editing this page for a very long time; being very familiar with the content myself, I’d say LeProf7272 has done an outstanding job both introducing the F-L angle concept and describing how it is used, but also in diligently providing citations wherever needed for the reader who wishes to drill down further. (3) See (2)…if you read leprof7272’s thorough editorial remarks you should immediately realize that this Wikipedia editor has brought a very deep and broad understanding of chemistry to his/her work on the F-L Angle page. In short, in my view the editor leprof7272 absolutely nailed the content over several careful iterations. (4) The accompanying diagrams are clear and convey the essential role of the F-L angle in describing trajectory during relevant chemical reactions.

I wasn’t actually aware that the Flippin-Lodge Angle had been made the subject of a Wikipedia entry until last year when a friend of mine told me it existed. Naturally being curious to find out what Wikipedia had to say about the discoveries made by my coworkers and I, I read the page and all the associated editorial discussions with great interest. Again, if my opinion matters to you, I would say that your recent tags on both the F-L angle and the B-D angle pages are unnecessary and should be removed.

Lee A. Flippin, Ph.D. laflippin@gmail.com

Thanks for the feedback Lee, but you must be confusing me with someone else completly. I only wanted to warn you that I undid a rather large content removal that you did without stating any reasons for the removal. I have no strong opinion on this, it was automatically flagged, since it was a removal of a lot of content without an explanation. Again, I did not make any assertion, I just reinstated the one that was removed without any explanation that it was fixed. Looking at the logs, I did suspect it might be partially rectified, but not fully, and without any explicit statement as to such, I assumed it was mere vandalism. This was of course amplified by being done without a user account. But I'm glad to hear that you think it could be removed, that's something I do not have enough qualifications to be certain off. Cafkafk (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)