User talk:Physics95

Welcome![edit]

Hi Physics95! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Caravelli-Traversa-Di Ventra equation (November 4)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This is largely unsourced, please add more sources.

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:Caravelli-Traversa-Di Ventra equation 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.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Physics95! 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! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Caravelli-Traversa-Di Ventra equation[edit]

Hello, Physics95,

Thank you for creating Caravelli-Traversa-Di Ventra equation.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The original paper has 44 citations. In addition, most of the sources on the web are by the authors. I am very dubious that this page passes the general "Peer Recognition" criteria. I am tagging it to give you a chance to improve it.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hi Physics95. Thank you for your work on Caravelli-Traversa-Di Ventra equation. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

The original paper has 44 citations. In addition, most of the sources on the web for this equation are by the authors. I am very dubious that this page passes the general "Peer Recognition" criteria. I am tagging it to give you a chance to improve it, rather than directly moving it back to draft or nominating for deletion.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The field is small?[edit]

hi! Thanks for the comments. I had actually not realized that the page was published, I had sort of given up. To be fair, also at the talk last year, it was not given much importance to this equation, more to the results they had with the experimentalists using similar techniques.

The issue I see (also after working on it for some time), is that there are very few mathematically oriented papers on the subject. However, I would not say that it does not pass the peer recognition: they published also in Science Advances with that equation, and that is very hard (with no experiments). Either way, please feel free to do what you think is right. Incidentally, the equation has appeared also recently in Nautilus:

https://nautil.us/the-magic-of-the-blackboard-487759/

which is based on their sci adv paper, alongside other known models, and referring to mathematical models of neuromorphic circuits/computing. As far as I can see from reading the article, none of the authors were involved in that article. It is just that the equation is not known as CTDV equation, and it is getting traction now as far as I can tell. Maybe it is just too early for a wiki page. I don't have time to work on the page, my PhD is getting too busy right now. Do what you think is right, but it would be great if I could do minimal work and not waste time. We will refer to it as CTDV equation in our paper.

@Ldm1954:.

Physics95 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]