User talk:Malypaet

creating my talk page[edit]

Malypaet (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really need to. —Tamfang (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kirchhoff-Clausius's Law (May 19)[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 ToadetteEdit was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing 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:Kirchhoff-Clausius's Law 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.

Toadette^Edit! 13:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malypaet! 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! Toadette^Edit! 13:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the source you are incriminating is my translation of Max Planck's article in reference [2]. As I cite the original in [1], if I remove the reference [2], all sources are valid. Is it sufficient ?

Otherwise I will open a discussion in the science helpdesk for help. It is regrettable that no one created this article before me, because Kirchhoff's law is used and cited by Max Planck to validate his law which gave him his Nobel Prize! Malypaet (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the ref [2] source by the same as the wikipedia article "Planck's Law [112], I hope it is a reliable one ? Malypaet (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kirchhoff-Clausius's Law (May 22)[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 Stuartyeates was:

We need secondary sources not primary 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:Kirchhoff-Clausius's Law 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.

Stuartyeates (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources form Max Planck, John D. Barrow and João Magueijo are secondary sources. They describe the Kirchhoff-Clausius law well. Publications on this law are rare. What more can I say? Why omit the publications of Kirchhoff and Clausius because they are primary sources? Malypaet (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]