Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheWikiholic 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.
Hello, Klon1000!
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! TheWikiholic (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikiholic,
I am new to Wikipedia. I was getting acquainted with different tools and mechanisms. I spotted in the end that I can reply to your review just as I am doing it now.
Please let me inform you that your REJECTION of my entry created for Wikipedia was NOT SUBJECT MATTER JUSTIFIED, at least for the reason that my entry did not contain references to reliable sources.
My entry from the very beginning DID CONTAIN references to scientific papers reviewed and accepted for publication in scientific journals. The References were placed at the end of the entry. The problem was that the References were not consistent with the format required by Wikipedia. At the time of my first submission of the entry I did not know how to make it.
Upon your rejection of my entry I learned how to put references in format required from Wikipedia. I actually just simply REWRITTEN ALREADY EXISTING references to be consistent with Wikipedia format and resubmitted my entry two days later.
Since that time my entry is hanging awaiting verification whether it has relevant References. I believe it does not require a lot of time to check that at present the entry contains reliable References in format required by Wikipedia, i.e. the reason for rejection of the entry has bee successfully removed.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman 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)
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:
I see little evidence this subject passes WP:GNG. The larger problem is that this was written by a mathematician for mathematicians as the text is nearly impossible for the average reader to penetrate. Please ask for help at WP:WikiProject Mathematics.
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.
You do not have the slightest idea what are the difficulties in proper understanding what the Haigh-Westergaard space is, why it is useful and important.
The people who are working in the fields of modelling of materials, continuum mechanics and tensor analysis, anisotropy and many other engineering subjects are very aware about touched in my entry problems and delivered answers. I have not written this entry for people who want to kill time by browsing internet but for people who search in-depth information.
Due to the above. Please delete this my entry from Wikipedia not waiting 6 months to do that. I withdraw all my authorship rights given to publish this material on Wikipedia.
I redirected interested people to my original scientific work, which touches among many other things the issue of Haigh-Westergaard space, i.e. https://www.ippt.pan.pl/repository/open/o7864.pdf. I believe you yourself should at least browse this my article before issuing your mocking Review.
The first Wikipedia Reviewer rejected my entry because he could not spot the References present there, on the false argument that there are no References present!
You as a second Reviewer once again rejected my entry upon false argument that References are not sufficient.
A competent and serious Reviewer will deliver subject matter critique. Such critique could indeed help in improving the entry.
I will not fight with amateurishness and clumsiness on Wikipedia. This is not my problem.
Dear good will and competent Wikipedia Team (I am sure there are such people in the Team) whenever you get some more knowledge and experience in the issue of Haigh-Westergaard Point Space and will be interested in publishing my entry on this issue in Wikipedia please contact me on email given in my mentioned above paper, and then I will consider what can be done.
