User:Ace111

MediaWiki version 1.44.0-wmf.8 (f08e6b3).

Wikipedia:Babel

ru

Русский — родной язык этого участника.

en-4

This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.

de-2

Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

fr-1

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).

This user runs a bot, Acebot (contribs). It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.

This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (in Russian).

Википедия
Я вношу вклад в русскую Википедию.

I support the Russian-language Wikipedia with my contributions.

This user is from the planet Earth.

This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤

This user contributes using Firefox.

Picture of the day

Marie Antoinette and Her Children

Painting credit: Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias

English	Sinugboanon	Deutsch	Français	Svenska	Nederlands	Русский	Español	Italiano	Polski
6,927,021	6,116,881+	2,969,773+	2,653,859+	2,599,640+	2,174,763+	2,015,305+	1,996,871+	1,896,283+	1,639,905+

More than 64,144,125 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 8,279,611 articles.

Russia

Aleksandr Azzam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significant coverage in reliable sources is lacking. Does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:NBASIC. Frost 05:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Russia, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No coverage found aside from player profile sites. There wouldn't be anyway from someone who only made their professional debut seven days ago. Procyon117 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Draftify – Per above, the player just made his professional debut. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 14:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Diana Pervushkina

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Alexei Pavlov (swimmer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT as there is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: There are real signs of notoriety here. Furthermore the story must be told without fear of repercussions from Moscow. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Genuine question, what do you mean by repercussions from Moscow? WP:LEGAL for more info. Conyo14 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Per WP:GNG: The topic has not received significant coverage with the article appearing to push a POV. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: PoV pushing at best. found nothing notable in my WP:BEFORE.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Soviet–Afghan War. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Soviet–Afghan War: It's pretty short as it is, and does need some work to let it less pov-y. It might also need a bit of a copyedit Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Soviet–Afghan War. Besides the reasons suggested above, there's not enough content to warrant a standalone article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: This does not qualify under Wikipedia guidelines for a standalone article. It could be argued if the "raids" ever occurred in Soviet Afghan or it is just a mere hoax, quoting from the Foreign involvement section:MI6 directly remitted money into an account of Pakistani leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Qazi Hussain Ahmad who had close links with Hekmatyar & Massoud. MI6's aim was for Ahmad to spread radical and anti-Soviet Islamic literature in the Soviet republics in the hope of rebellions against their Communist governments. I do not find a single raid so far, rather there are just plannings and some covert money transfers to terrorist organisations it seems like a WP:HOAX. Do not merge it when there are only passing mentions of a few words regarding Pakistani raids which are dubious or say hoax event. Nxcrypto Message 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Others

Draft

Shortcuts

Science

List of inorganic reactions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of November 29–30, 2022

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING, I was unable to find any sources on the event or any of its impacts since late 2022. While there are reliable sources that cover this event, such as AccuWeather and Fox Weather, neither of these sources, nor any other secondary source that I could find, has covered it since the event took place, making it fail WP:PERSISTENCE. Because this has seemingly not received secondary coverage outside of a news cycle of only a few days after the event, I believe that this article is non-notable, and should be merged and/or redirected to Tornadoes of 2022. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:LASTING Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

List of acids by Hammett acidity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This could probably be merged into the article Hammett acidity function as it currently doesn't provide much context, and much of the list overlaps with the list on Hammett acidity function. It's also a very short list. Pygos (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This is a ridiculously short list, shorter, even, than the list at Hammett acidity function (not Hammett acidity as given by Pygos, which doesn't exist). It fulfils no purpose not already served by Hammett acidity function, which can be edited, if necessary, by adding other important examples. Athel cb (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Oops, I put the wrong link. I've fixed it. Pygos (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I was planning on adding more. I mainly created the page because I didn't trust the numbers on the other page so I wanted to create my own list with better sources. I suspect some of the numbers on the existing list are also from people confusing hammett acidity with pKa TariosGD1618 (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Added a couple more, no longer shorter than the list at the Hammett acidity function article TariosGD1618 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that's the wrong solution. If there are problems with the list at Hammett acidity function it needs to be corrected, not put in competition with another list. Athel cb (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge in Hammett acidity function. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Contact-electro-catalysis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article which was previously Draft:Contact-electro-catalysis and rejected from AfD as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia by Pygos after being previously declined by Ldm1954, DMacks, CSMention269, Liance and Iwaqarhashmi. Editor created this new version directly to mainspace, circumventing prior history. Current version is a recent proposed catalysis approach from a single group which as yet has no other significant coverage or secondary sources, so WP:TOOSOON. As previously pointed out by Pygos there is probably also a COI. Going to AfD as it apparently does not qualify for a speedy delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete as TOOSOON from COI. Not overtly promotional wording, but self-cited to hell and back, with general lack of independent references to demonstrate notability. To emphasize, it was rejected at AFC, and the same editor who now created in mainspace is the same as the one involved at AFC. That editor is possibly a role account and by various evidence undoubtedly involved in the research. This one is nearly the same lede, does not appear to make any new claims with substantially newer independent references to meet WP:GNG, and has even less body content than the rejected one. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete for lack of notability and lack of comprehensibility, quite apart from the COI issues — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your advice! Indeed, contact-electro-catalysis has only been proposed for 2 years, which is still an emerging and young field compared to other mature catalytic strategies. Up to now, there are over 50 research groups from 15 countries have particpated in the research of CEC according to the data in Web of Science. A promient example concerns Prof. Richard N. Zare from Stanford Unviersity. His research group has employed CEC to realzie contiuous production of ammonia, and this progress is also highlight by the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2322425121) 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete and Salt - borders on WP:MADEUP. It's only a concept? So, this is essentially one or more persons saying, "I have an idea ..." There has been only 11 page views within the last month. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your advice! Some representative applications of contact electro-catalysis include the degradation of organic pollutants (such as methyl orange in aqueous solution), the synthesis of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and the continuous production of ammonia. These three applications have been published in various high-profile scientific journals, with each study conducted by independent research groups. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. As far as I can see this is just an idea, with, at present, no working examples. Athel cb (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your advice! Some representative applications of contact electro-catalysis include the degradation of organic pollutants (such as methyl orange in aqueous solution), the synthesis of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and the continuous production of ammonia. These three applications have been published in various high-profile scientific journals, with each study conducted by independent research groups. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: TOOSOON to keep this article. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support! 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're getting much support here... ~Liance^talk 17:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At least all these suggestions are very valuable for us to improve the quality of the draft. And we really appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this draft, no matter these comments are positive or negatvie. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your suggestion! The contact-electro-catalysis is indeed an emerging and yound field, as it was proposed in 2022. While Prof. Zhong Lin Wang’s group has been a pioneer in this area and has published a lot on CEC, an increasing number of researchers are now engaging in this research. Notable independent research groups, such as those led by Prof. Feng-Ru Fan at Xiamen University, Prof. Richard N. Zare at Stanford University, and Prof. Qing-Xia Chen at the University of Alberta in Canada, are also making valuable contributions to the field. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - draft was rejected from AfC for a reason. If it wasn't already apparent from the IP editor's comments here, there's clear COI concerns at the very least, and the sourcing does not at all demonstrate notability as it appears to be non-independent. ~Liance^talk 17:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your advice! Regarding the potential COI issues, this revised manuscript has described the concept of CEC and the current research progress from a third-party perspective using objective language. For the reference, in addition to some pioneering article by Prof. Zhong Lin Wang's group, this revised manuscript also cites a number of independent research progress from research groups unrelated to Prof. Zhong Lin Wang. We hope this can relive your concerns. Best wishes! 65.75.221.161 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It was more of a recent research-based text, that has no substantive references to prove it's existence. And the IP seriously not have any idea about COI, i.e. conflict of ~~issues~~ interest policy. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your suggestion! I apologize for not checking Wikipedia’s definition of COI, as I am neither the author nor a participant in the editing process. My involvement in CEC research began after attending a presentation by Prof. Zhong Lin Wang, and I am currently writing a review article on the topic. Prof. Wang is a pioneer in this field, and it is inevitable to cite some of his original articles in both academic papers and entries, but such citations are usually seen as a respect for the original literature.

Although I am now working on this research area, I have no personal interest in the success of creating this entry. I spot this Wikipedia page while searching for literatures about CEC, and I am indeed shocked by the difficulties and controversies encountered when trying to create an entry on Wikipedia about a new field that has received widespread attention in academia (with 223 academic papers published in the past two years, according to Google Scholar).

I appreciate the discussions over the past few days, which has refreshed my understanding of Wikipedia. I noticed that the author has not responded to comments or updated the text. I will leave it to the author and hope them all the best. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Fisheries Society of Bangladesh

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found press releases and directory listings, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The society's work may be good and important, especially to those connected with it, but the organization is not notable (not a suitable topic for a stand alone Wikipedia article). Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Obviously the page itself needs to have sources added. What persuades me towards keep is that the organisation is quoted quite a lot as part of the CV or similar of people, e.g. membership, talks, award and Orcid entries as examples. (There are many more of these.) This indicates that it has enough stature that people mention it, albeit this is not as strong as specific articles on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that there are sources that cover this organization? WP:NORG requires sources, not just membership number claims or the existence of conferences they've hosted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions

Measure (physics) (via WP:PROD on 7 December 2024)
Evolution equations in high-energy particle physics (via WP:PROD on 4 December 2024)

Science Miscellany for deletion

Science Redirects for discussion

Deletion Review

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ace111.