User Talk: AndreiDukhin

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

:Electroacoustic phenomena ↗

{{{icon|left|40px ↗}}}
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of :Electroacoustic phenomena ↗, and it appears to include a substantial copy of {{{2|http://www.dispersion.com/pages/theory/electroacoustictheory/electroacoustictheory.htm}}}. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DL.gif

32px|left|Image Copyright problem ↗
Thank you for uploading :Image:DL.gif ↗. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright ↗ very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the '''license''' and the '''source''' of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a '''copyright tag ↗''' to the image description page ↗.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page ↗. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, i have left some advice on the Talk:Double Layer (interfacial) ↗ page regarding how to improve it, and your other articles further.--Jac16888 15:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Stress

The three links you just put on the Stress ↗ dab page all redirect to Stress (physics) ↗. Were you planning on linking them to subsections or creating main pages for them? Otherwise they should be removed. WLU 14:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:Hi,
:Look, the wikilinks you are adding to Stress ↗ are just redirecting to Stress (physics) ↗. Click on the links and you'll see what I mean. That's why I keep removing them. If you want the wikilinks to stay on the DAB page, you should create those specific pages. I can tell you how if you'd like, but adding the links isn't helping any readers because it redirects to the physics page, when it should redirect to a page linked to rheology and acoustics. Creating those pages would be great and helpful to wikipedia, but the links alone are not. WLU 20:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

::Hi,
::I've reverted the change to the stress page again. To see why, go to this ↗ version of the page and click on the links. '''Look at the page you are taken to'''. It is Stress (<u>physics</u>) ↗. I understand what you are trying to do, but it is putting in a misleading link that will confuse readers of the page, not help them. Please create the appropriate pages, or don't put the wikilinks back. Thanks, WLU 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Little context in :Surfactant titration ↗

left ↗Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on :Surfactant titration ↗, by {{#ifeq:{{{nom}}}|1|{{{nominator}}} (talk '''·''' contribs ↗),}} another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted ↗ from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because :Surfactant titration ↗ is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub ↗ for our minimum information standards for short articles. <br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting :Surfactant titration ↗, please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD ↗. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.''' CSDWarnBot 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB

AndreiDukhin, I note that you have a major interest in Titration (disambiguation) ↗. I have made some very heavy edits to this article in the interests of bringing the page into line with the manual of style for disambiguation pages. Please read WP:MOSDAB ↗ and the discussion page and discuss if you are uncomfortable with the changes. Not being a chemist I may not have got some things technically correct, you may want to tidy it up but it couldn't take any more words than are already in there. If there were facts in this that do not appear in either the articles themselves or in Titration#Types of titrations ↗ you may want to add them to those places. Ex nihil (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:Dispersion Technology Inc ↗

left|40px|alt=|link= ↗
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of :Dispersion Technology Inc ↗, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.dispersion.com/about-us.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain ↗ or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy ↗ for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials ↗ for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dispersion Technology Inc

Hello AndreiDukhin,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged :Dispersion Technology Inc ↗ for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can <span class="plainlinks">'''contest this deletion ↗'''</span>, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. '''''<span style="color:Blue">Ish</span><span style="color:Green">dar</span><span style="color:Red">ian</span> ↗''''' 15:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Dispersion Technology Inc ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.</p><p>You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on :Dispersion Technology Inc ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright ↗ infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.dispersion.com/about-us. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences''. This part is crucial: ''say it in your own words''. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be blocked from editing ↗'''.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you ''must'' verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials ↗. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission ↗. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ for more details, or ask a question here ↗.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗.   <span style="color:green; font-family:Candara"><b>I, JethroBT</b></span> <sup>drop me a line</sup> 15:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Dispersion Technology Inc ↗

Dispersion Technology Inc ↗

That your competitor has an article does not refute the point that the article you created, as it reads now, basically only serves to promote the company, and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please read The plain and simple COI guide ↗ before making an article on your company, as it is fairly clear you are associated with it. I realize it doesn't seem fair and is frustrating that competitors have articles, but Wikipedia is simply not a place to promote your company. <span style="color:green; font-family:Candara"><b>I, JethroBT</b></span> <sup>drop me a line</sup> 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
:Also, please stop removing the speedy deletion templates (it clearly informs you not to in '''bold print'''). An administrator will evaluate your claim on the talk page and make a decision. <span style="color:green; font-family:Candara"><b>I, JethroBT</b></span> <sup>drop me a line</sup> 16:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Dispersion Technology Inc ↗

Answer about promoting Dispersion Technology

Term promotion means comparison with positive conclusion. I do not compare our company, Dispersion Technology Inc, with others. I simple state fact. Well known and easily verifiable. Wikipedia is about facts. I am offering here facts, nothing more. I am not saying that our products better then others. Just facts. Why offering facts is allowed for Malvern, and not allowed for us?

Dispersion Technology Inc

Hi, thanks for message. Lots of problems. I deleted your article because

it did not provide '''independent verifiable sources ↗''' to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines ↗. You have no references. Even if your external link to the company is counted as a reference, it's clearly not independent. Even if what you say is accepted as fact, I'm not sure that your company meets the notability criteria.

it was written in a promotional ↗ tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. The use of "we" and "our" is unencyclopaedic, and seems like ownership ↗. Anyone can edit the article, it is not your company's private page. You should not have an invitation to visit your website, and it's not for you to decide what is a '''leading''' scientific journal

it's all about what the company does, little about the company itself. Locations (it's not even obvious what country you are in)? How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors?

previous versions have been copyright violations, found by the bot. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy ↗. That applies '''even to pages created by you or your organisation''', unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is '''public domain'''. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here ↗; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

You have an obvious conflict of interest ↗ when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles ↗ for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest ↗.

We discourage people from writing about themselves or their companies (using a company as a user name, for example, gets an immediate indefinite block) because it's difficult to get objectivity. It's not actually banned, but it's not easy. The fact that a competitor has an article doesn't help you. Either that article meets the criteria above, or it too should be deleted (I haven't looked) <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"><span style="color:red;">Jimfbleak</span> - </b><span style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> talk to me?</span> 05:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Malvern

Malvern's page has the feel of something I should delete, but it's actually pretty well fire-proof. Even the claim of significance is reffed to an impeccable source. The extensive referencing to independent sources, apparent notability and lack of blatant spam means that it cannot be speedy deleted. I could be tagged for a deletion discussion, but I think that would fail. It's a good model <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"><span style="color:red;">Jimfbleak</span> - </b><span style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> talk to me?</span> 15:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dispersion Technology Inc

Thank you very much. We will try to construct similar page. Will take some time. I will send you message when we finish. <span style="font-family:chiller"><b><span style="color:red">AndreiDukhin</span></b></span>

:I suggest that you initially create it here so that it can be checked before being moved to article space. It's always worth doing that anyway to make sure formatting etc is OK. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"><span style="color:red;">Jimfbleak</span> - </b><span style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> talk to me?</span> 05:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
::Note that I've tweaked your signature, it was making everything subsequent red and bold! <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"><span style="color:red;">Jimfbleak</span> - </b><span style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> talk to me?</span> 05:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

:::I made these edits ↗, most MoS. Note that refs should ''immediately follow'' punctuation.
:::*Refs from 21 on need tweaking to remove the etraneous numbers; I did it for the three ISOs earlier on. You just need to move the closing <nowiki>]</nowiki> to include at least some of the description as well as the url.
:::*The Elsevier ref is a sales site, better if you can replace with a ref that confirms its existence but isn't selling it
:::*When you have done that you will need to move the page (you should see a move tab somewhere) to its original title. Note that your article ''may'' still be challenged, and that the similarity to Malvern may or may not help. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"><span style="color:red;">Jimfbleak</span> - </b><span style="font-family:arial; color:green;"> talk to me?</span> 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dispersion Technology ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conductivity ↗ and Milling ↗ (check to confirm ↗ | fix with Dab solver ↗). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open! ↗

Hi,<br>
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election ↗. The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements ↗ and submit your choices on the voting page ↗. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :File:CVI.gif ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

A tag has been placed on :File:CVI.gif ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗.   Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dispersion Technology ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Electrokinetics ↗ and Feature article ↗ ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dispersion_Technology check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dispersion_Technology?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Volume viscosity page

<span style="font-family:arial">Hello, I hope you are doing well. Did you see the reply I posted to you on my talk page? I might want to work on the article a bit today. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC) </span>

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2019 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2019|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

Your thread has been archived

{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''AndreiDukhin'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Ion}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Ion ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Conductivity (non-aqueous) ↗ moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Conductivity (non-aqueous) ↗. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because '''it needs more sources to establish notability''' and '''it is too much like an essay/textbook'''.
I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page ↗.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

AfC ↗ notification: Draft:Conductivity (non-aqueous) ↗ has a new comment

<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Conductivity (non-aqueous) ↗. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC) </div>

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: Conductivity (non-aqueous) ↗ (January 19)

<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fdf2d5); color: inherit; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation ↗ has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by WeirdNAnnoyed was:

{{divbox|gray|3=The last section is still unsourced, and the article contains non-standard English phrasing and grammar. Please add references and consult with a native English speaker if this is not your first language; I would be happy to help if needed as I'm a native speaker.|}} 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 it ''after they have been resolved''.
{{clear}}

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Conductivity (non-aqueous) ↗ 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 <span class="plainlinks" >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Conductivity_(non-aqueous) '''Articles for creation help desk''']</span>, on the <span class="plainlinks" >[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WeirdNAnnoyed&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Conductivity_(non-aqueous) '''reviewer's talk page''']</span> or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors ↗.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)</div>

{| style="margin: 0.4em 2em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo ↗
| <div style="background-color:#e1e6db; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;">Hello, '''AndreiDukhin'''!
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! WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)</div>
|}
Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC ↗

:I have made all required changes. The article was read and edited language wise. Thank you AndreiDukhin (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: Conductivity (non-aqueous) ↗ has been accepted

<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:var(--background-color-success-subtle, #dff2eb); padding: 0.5em 1em; color: inherit; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;">50px|left ↗ '''Conductivity (non-aqueous) ↗, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!'''<br />

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. <br />

The article has been assessed as '''C-Class''', which is recorded on its talk page ↗. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top {{AfC talk/C percentage}} of accepted submissions, well done! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme ↗ to see how you can improve the article.

See the quality assessment scheme ↗ to find out how to improve the article.

'''Future articles'''
<div class="autoconfirmed-show">

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself ↗ without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation ↗ if you prefer.</div>

Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself ↗ without posting a request to Articles for creation ↗.</div>

'''Next steps'''

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article ↗. This helps readers find it.

Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories ↗.

You may consider nominating a fact from the article ↗ within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section ↗.

Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.

The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines ↗ once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.

For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse ↗, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!
Nighfidelity (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)</div>

Please read.

In the article, nanobubbles ↗, you added content that is not in the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia. This content has since been removed. I know you are an expert in this field from your user page, and this is something that many people like you struggle with. I did not check, but it also reads as copyright violating material, so I am guessing it is either plagiarized (given your past history) or written like a research paper because you are an expert in the field. I can understand; coming from the academic world, Wikipedia is almost the antithesis of the academic world in many ways, especially when it comes to copyright, tone, original research and expertise. I would encourage you to read the variety of essays and policies on copyright and the relationship between experts and Wikipedia. Thank you. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you for writing this note and informing me about your action. Nanobubbles are essential element for important modern technologies. However, they should not exist according to classical theory. The theory that you removed resolve this contradiction. Basically, it is fundamental background for all those valuable applications. Cutting off the theory section you could remove the complete page Nanobubble. It does not make sense without it. The theory was published in two peer reviewed articles, presented and highly acclaimed at 4 conferences. There are already publications on this theory, for instance by F. Arias “Comment on the paper “A new approach to explaining nano-bubbles paradoxical longevity, Dukhin A and Xu R“ [Colloids Surf. A 700 (2024) 34805]”. In addition, removing this text you removed also references to some other publications that are essential for this field, and their authors agreed on citation of their studies.
:The text that you removed has been active for several months. Many experts on the field saw it and nobody objected. Just opposite, I heard positive comments. The text that you removed cannot be published in any scientific journal because it is only an essence of the subject with no details, no derivations. You cannot call it research study.
:I have many other texts on many Wikipedia pages that are present for decades, with no objections and many appreciation regards. You are the only one who removes my texts.
:I am 70 years old. It just happened that I possess some unique knowledge due to peculiarities of my life. I am very careful in deciding what to place on Wikipedia, only mature pieces and only essence of them. I have published 4 books by Elsevier, I know copyrights issues and obey it always. I am member of International Standard Organization and was leader in creating many ISO standards on consensus basis, I have a lot of experience to extract the core of the studies that would ensure consensus.
:May I ask you to stop this personal vendetta. I do not have any profit from my work with Wikipedia, nothing for my carrier, too old, no money. Why do you do this and accuse me of all these sins?
:I will wait for more justification of your action till Tuesday, two days. Then I will restore that text. It is way to important these days. AndreiDukhin (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hello. I feel you have taken my message in the wrong way. I have '''no vendetta against you'''. I have nothing against you, in fact. I suspected copyvio for 2 reasons, although now I am leaning towards tone being the issue instead. First, towards the start of your editing I see you had a few problems with copyvio, but many have and that is not my main reason. My main reason is this: the text added is ''extremely'' technical. I mean, look at this text! 'The normal force is exerted by inhomogeneous electric field of EDL on the oriented water molecules dipole moments.' I have no idea what this means in the slightest, and so does 99% of the population. Too technical for the average reader, but just enough technical for something in a publication or paper. May I remind you of this XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2501/. (Average Familiarity) Also see the ''Scientific Journal'' section of this Wikipedia policy ↗. I have ran it through Earwig's Copyvio and it said no, so I will disregard this idea. But tone (and grammar) is my problem here.
::Here is my so-called 'holotype specimen' of this issue:
::<blockquote>We reproduce here results of the paper by Meegoda et al (see Figure on the right) because it illustrates correlation between bubble diameter and zeta potential proving importance of this parameter. The red line represents result of theory.</blockquote>
::"We reproduce here results of the paper by Meegoda et al" - How is this encyclopedic? Who is 'we'? Why are we linking (although there is a inline citation after this) to a paper this way? Wouldn't it be better to say 'Some papers have found a correlation between bubble diameter and zeta potential.' or something of the sort?
::The other problem is grammar. You refer to complicated concepts with 'the' making them sound like people or place names. The numbered list here also falls short; it goes '(number)(period)(text)' without a space between the period and the text. This is more of a style problem, but like every other concept is bolded for some reason. You should bold much less frequently then this.
::I understand your concern about this being important to the article, and I am sure it is. But with how many problems it has in it's current state, bad information is much worse then no information.
::I also have a problem with a few of your arguments here: <blockquote> 'I have many other texts on many Wikipedia pages that are present for decades, with no objections and many appreciation regards. You are the only one who removes my texts.' </blockquote>
::For an editor with such a long edit history, I am sure you have been reverted before, with a rollback, undo or manual revert you wouldn't have been notified of. This is certifiably false. I also see a variety of deletion nominations on things you have created and some messages by other editors warning you of a variety of things similar to what I have warned you of. Look at the heading on this page: 'Conductivity (non-aqueous)'. You have had complaints on tone before. Looking at your list of edited articles, you have had a variety of reverts of content you have added with a conflict of interest. Specifically, adding citations from Elsevier, which in your userpage you ''literally say you have published through''. You also have papers supporting the theories you pushed on the nanobubble page, which is '''another conflict of interest'''.
::'Many experts on the field saw it and nobody objected.' - Source? 'Experts' usually don't read Wikipedia and I see no one anywhere thanking you for the text you added to the article. That makes no sense whatsoever.
::And this whole business of giving me a 'deadline' to respond to your claims is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a battleground ↗. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Good afternoon. I agree with some of your statements. Yes, Wikipedia is not a battleground indeed. And I agree with your comment on style, your version of that paragraph is better. And I can remove names for minimizing conflict of interest. BUT. Accusation of plagiarism triggered my reactions. I apologize, nevertheless. And it is not possible always to write on this subject that everybody would comprehend. There are many pages on Wikipedia that I do not understand. And experts do read Wikipedia often.
:::I suggest that I restore the text. I will remove names. I will modify paragraph that you mentioned. And I agree to consider and implement other changes to style if you have any. I will look once more on the text from this viewpoint.
:::Agree? AndreiDukhin (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Agreed, but I would try to simplify the concepts a bit more (less 'big' words, although still use them when applicable) and add explanatory footnotes (efn tags) as much as possible. Also more blue links if there is a page on each of these concepts. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Good. I will start tomorrow. I am a bit confused with you using tern "footnote". I read on footnotes - it is citation that I use widely. I think you are talking about different one. For instance, I have a term "dielectrostatic force". Instead of defining it in the text I can bring it to the footnote, but different type one. I tried to find "efn tags". Wiki search gives nothing on this. How do I create such "meaning footnotes"? I have never seen them. Maybe you can direct me to the page with such. This might be sufficient for mimicking. AndreiDukhin (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::See: Template:efn ↗. For example:{{efn|An instance (such as a problem to be solved) serving to illustrate a rule or precept or to act as an exercise in the application of a rule{{ref|https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/example}}}} Ilov3gam3z (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::You can see a few at 2000 Xenia tornado ↗. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I restored the theory text and added couple of changes we talked about. I will do more along these lines coming days. Maybe later today. AndreiDukhin (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)